Hi It looks like the problem is not a change of direction, but what to do with the current work. We can release a XESAM 1.0 but:
1) How many projects are going to implement it? 2) If the change to nepomuk based ontologies and sparQL happens and we call it XESAM 2.0... the specs will be _completely_ incompatible. My point is that to release a spec just for the blessing of having a spec or because some work was already done doesn't sound right. For the credibility of the project, i think it is as bad to release something and dont commit to it as dont release anything. Ivan On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen < [email protected]> wrote: > 2009/4/24 Arun Raghavan <[email protected]>: > > 2009/4/24 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[email protected]>: > > [...] > >>> - Simplified DBus API: Strigi prefers less state in the API and the > >>> Tracker team (that's us) want to someday have a proto that basically > >>> proxies this API over UDP (so we want to reduce the amount of state > >>> drastically too). We thoroughly discussed this during the Hackfest in > >>> Berlin and we were almost in tears when we finally started agreeing on > >>> the new direction. Let's not undo that. > >>> > >>> Seriously. > >> > >> Right :-) That cost us a lot of sword fighting, but the agreement is > >> still there. > >> > >> But from my perspective that doesn't leave Xesam 1.0 as irrelevant. > >> But as I've hinted elsewhere I don't want to impose that one anyone. > > > > After all the time and effort that we've put into this spec, it seems > > a little overboard to just drop it as a lost cause. Especially when I > > think a *lot* of the ground work to get first-class support for Xesam > > 1.0 has already been done (correct me if I'm wrong). > > > > Why not get the 1.0 implementations out there, and then work towards > > getting 2.0 along in a way that converges towards the goals Philip > > listed, in a shorter timeframe than 1.0 took? Especially since there > > seems to be some agreement on these already. If that process seems to > > be cumbersome, let's _fix_ it, rather than give up on the effort to > > standardise the desktop search interface altogether. > > I agree. However I think with all the delay we have suffered at this > point it would be very bad for the project to engage in some long > meta-discussion. If some parties do not feel inclined to implement 1.0 > I can live with that. It may happen that others implement the spec > anyways. Just push onward. Like Ivan also mentioned in his latest > email about the ontology it is much easier to do a healthy discussion > having a stable base. > > If Nokia require a spec that does less roundtrips to do what they want > then I think it is fair that they don't want to spend time on > something they ultimately will have to redo. > > The bottom line: Let's JFD 1.0 and we can easily proceed on 2.0 in > parallel. > > -- > Cheers, > Mikkel > _______________________________________________ > Xesam mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam >
_______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
