2007/5/11, Joe Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi, On 5/11/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically we have four desktop ontologies that I know of: > > Strigi: > http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdesupport/strigi/src/streamanalyzer/fieldproperties/ > Tracker : > http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/tracker/trunk/data/services/ > Spotlight: > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Reference/MetadataAttributesRef/index.html The plan with Beagle was always to use existing ontologies where they exist.. of course, we never really got around to doing that, which is why a lot of them that aren't covered by Dublin Core are in the "fixme" namespace. I still think this is probably the way to go, especially if we have a desire to easily transition to or from RDF. Tracker's seems like the closest to this.
I'm not sure I understand you. What exactly do you mean Trackers ontology is close to? And is this good or bad? :-) I haven't been following this thread super closely. Why define these
in .desktop-like files rather than in some sort of documented specification? Code is what ultimately will be setting these, so it will have to obey them.
Because we could allow 3rd parties to install their own ontologies so we wouldn't have to cover everything known to man. With machine a readable ontology you could also create tools to visualize the ontology - they tend to be complex beasts... I have some more reasons in the mail from Fabrice I just replied to... Cheers, Mikkel
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
