Re: [Tracker] Zeitgeist ontology and Tracker

[Ivan Frade <ivan frade gmail com>]

Hi,

 The big difference between that original NEO (Nepomuk Event Ontology)
and the zeitgeist proposal is how to represent an instance of an
event.

 In NEO we propose:
<x> a neo:Event ;
   neo:hasManifestation <neo:pre-defined-manifestation-access>
   neo:hasInterpretation <neo:pre-defined-interpretation-user-activity>
   neo:hasActor <urn:software:123123123>   # This being a neo:software

 What ZG is proposing is more in the line of:
<x> a neo:Event, neo:AccessEvent, neo:UserActivity
    neo:hasActor <blabla>

 [They do it "overriding" rdf:type property, but at the end is
translated into this]

The first option is consistent with our use of the ontology everywhere
else, and Interpretations and Manifestations don't have specific
properties, so there is no need of a class for them. It is also closer
to the Zeitgeist model, which is a good hint that it goes in the right
direction.

I think Mikkael overall agrees on this, but then comes the problem of
API/ABI in zeitgeist. IIRC they are exposing the event
manifestations/interpretations via #defines (which is ok to update)
but some applications are using directly DBus... so we are not
completely free there. We should take a look into this more carefully
and hopefully we can make a smooth transition. This is a ZG-tracker
combined effort.

Regards,

Ivan