Hi On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Roberto Guido <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009 17:22:08 Jamie McCracken wrote: > > at this time so xesam does not look a viable standard at the moment > > > I can accept this, the most important point is to admit it. > > Next question is: would ever be Xesam a viable standard? > > Proposal from Ivan (please, correct me!!!) is to fork the Nepomuk ontology > and > maintain it in a community-driven structure, defining then the common API > to > access information. Is this possible? Is this a solution? Is this in the > interest? Would "relevant trackers" agree to apply what specified here? > Lets use the XESAM architecture: 1) Ontologies: I propose to move to nepomuk based ontologies, maintained in the XESAM project. so yes, it includes fork. 2) Query language: To use SparQL with the Update and some operation extensions (wihtout that it is useless). 3) Communication protocol: No alternatives here, it is a point where we can innovate in XESAM. And a general reorganization of the web. I still find it confusing :) > > What I'd like to see is to avoid a new failure as in Xesam 0.X: if a > standardization is possible let's work to define that, otherwise close this > project and move efforts in other directions. > Everybody agrees that we need a project like XESAM, but the project must be up-to-date. For that it needs changes in various levels: * Coordination of the project: we have the tools and the infrastructure, but they need a reorganization. * Contents of the project: The 3 points i wrote above. I hope this helps, and soon we will be discussing how to proceed with these changes. Ivan
_______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
