2007/5/17, Fabrice Colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 5/16/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MEETING: > * It was proposed that we had a platform independent libxesam with the core > non-dbus related utilities such as query parsing and query construction. It > was the general consensus that the time wasn't right. It might be good to > have one, but we should wait and reconsider this when the spec was set was > more mature. Toolkit specific libs abstracting away dbus and other evils > should be provided at some point though. > Agreed. I don't see this as a must-have. > * We reopened the services/types/categories debate, and quickly settled on > the name categories to avoid confusing the word "type" from field types. > Example categories are Video, Audio, Email, Contacts, etc. > Did you guys come up with a full list ?
Nope, not yet. We still need to agree on how the "list" should be structured.
* It was brought up again whether this category system should be > independent or dependent on the field definitions. Again we where split in > two camps. Strigi/Nepomuk arguing that the fields should be able to only be > defined on certain cats, and Mikkel/jamie on the other side arguing for > simplicity of the spec. > I think it should be dependent on the field definitions. For instance, it doesn't make sense to set Audio.Composer on something that's been categorized as Email.
That is totally correct, but does this have to be reflected in the ontology? Why not just have this in a written spec, or just implied by common sense? Each new feature/requirement we add to the spec makes it harder to implement and harder to understand. Cheers, Mikkel
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
