On Friday 18 May 2007 12:27:30 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > > > * should we allow for multiple inheritance (ie multiple parents for > > > fields)? > > > > I believe there were two issues intermixed: multiple parents for fields > > and > > multiple types or as you say categories for files. > > True. That is two issues, but I got the impression that the Strigi/Nepomuk > camp where in favor of both?
> As I consider multiple inheritance (both cats and/or fields) to be a > somewhat big feature request it needs to be founded on solid reasoning if > we should go with it. I don't consider multiple file types/categories a big feature. Suppose a file has type/category Audio. This means it belongs to the following categories: File, Media, Audio. So it already has multiple types. The question is whether we allow these types to be outside of strict hierarchy. Multiple field inheritance, is too in my opinion is not a big feature request if inheritance is implemented as such. It might be useful if we link multiple external ontologies. If we stick with a relatively simple core ontology, it may not be required. Time will tell. > Unfortunately we didn't really get to discuss any > practical use cases in the IRC meeting. > > I have not been able to come up with a good use case (of multi inh.) > myself, but maybe some one here can? Source code: It is a text document(contains text) and software(has dependencies on other software). --Evgeny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
