2007/5/18, Evgeny Egorochkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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.
It all boils down to whether or not we allow cycles in the ontology tree. It is a lot easier to parse/update a tree structure if there are no cycles. That is why I consider it a big feature. 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.
"We" in this context is *only* the nepomuk project mind you (correct me if I'm wrong please). There are no plans what so ever for integrating with general ontologies in xesam. You can extend the xesam ontology with other xesam-compliant ontologies and that's it. Xesam should of course not restrict Nepomuk from doing this.
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).
You mean that it might ref some .h files fx? If that is what you meant I can't see why a simple subclass SourceCode->TextFile (or something) isn't enough..? Cheers, Mikkel
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
