On Monday 21 May 2007 19:29:34 Joe Shaw wrote: > Hi, > > On 5/19/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It makes easier to understand the ontology for both humans and software > > > since this explicitly specifies which fields should be used for a > > > particular file type/category. > > > > > > It is especially important for software, since it doesn't have any > > > other way to deduce this info. > > > > You are correct. Implementations can ignore this and the world would > > still stand. Your point about GUIs better being able to display metadata > > relevant to the object in question (in a dynamic way) is also good. > > Dynamic user interfaces are usually pretty terrible because there's no > way for the software to determine what's relevant to the user. One of > the things that bugs me about most of the RDF-based semantic whatever > implementations I've seen is that the relationships are presented in > such a generic way so as not to be useful (or worse, terribly > confusing). Essentially you're displaying key-value pairs to the > user, and that's never a good thing. > > This was one of the big things we learned in Beagle's predecessor, > Dashboard (http://nat.org/dashboard), and the reason why we have a > concept of "tiles" in our UI, which know how to display different > types of information differently, and which are programmed to know > what's important and what isn't. > > I would suggest we steer away from developing a spec to cater to > dynamic user interfaces.
Not sure what you mean by "knowing how to display", but when app encounters meta-data outside of the core or known onto, it has to deal with it nevertheless. The more structured the onto is, the more opportunities the app has to present/process the data properly. Will take a closer look at your "tiles"... --Evgeny _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
