Hi all,
I'd like you to take a look at the ontology sketch
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PhreedomDraft?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=viz.png
It's not complete. Some fields/classes are dropped intentionally.
I'd like to hear some feedback first.
Points of interest:
*** Sources
*Source hierarchy
*Which properties belong to content and which to source?
*** Multimedia ontology
*** Contact ontology
*** Corner cases:
* Complex file formats like databases, mailboxes.
* Problematic classes like Source code.
*** DataObject properties
These are the most generic ones. We need to decide whether DataObject
implements DC or DC is placed one level lower.
*** Property interitance:
As you may have noticed, there's no sent/recv date for messages and
other
obvious fields are missing.
The idea here is that i'ts impractical to mirror all inherited fields
in
leaf-level classes. I.e. we could have
contentAuthor<-documentAuthor<-textDocumentAuthor<-sourceCodeAuthor, or we
could use contentAuthor everywhere.
That is property renaming is not a sufficient reason to make a
subproperty of
it. All classes/file formats tend to name things quite differently. i.e.
Author can be: composer, coder, sender whatever. But the meaning is the same.
A rule of thumb is that parent and child properties must be essentially
different.
Child must provide some useful and meaningful implications/limitations as
compared to parent e.g.:
* controlled-vocabulary/string format/range limitations
* provide value grouping(generic recipient vs to/cc/bcc in email)
* record provenance(user-assigned keywords vs author's content-embedded
keywords)
For Email case, sent time = content creation time;
recv time = local copy ceation time(File creation time as repoted by the FS)
--Evgeny
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
