Re: [Tracker] Zeitgeist ontology and Tracker

[Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com>]

On 31/03/11 08:39, Ivan Frade wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the comments Ivan.

Actually, the first thing that comes to mind is, can we alias the 
ontologies to allow both names for smooth transition (without 
duplicating the data in the db). I haven't seen anything like this from 
what I remember. Juergbi, any comment there?

--
Regards,
Martyn