Re: [Tracker] Gnome Ontologies

[Ivan Frade <ivan frade gmail com>]

Hi Anatoly

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:17 AM, אנטולי קרסנר <tombackton gmail com> wrote:

Hello,

...

So I've been wondering: Currently those new ontologies seem to target
specific apps.

 The ontologies are (should be!) application independent but we work on them on demand. We refine a domain when an application is making use of it and having specific requirements.

 

Is there a chance I propose updates and additions to the
ontologies too?

 Please do! We can review and help with those changes and merge them into the tracker ontologies when they look right. It is the kind of feedback we need from applications.

 

 

I mean, I don't work on any official Gnome module, but some generally
useful and common task-related classes and concepts would allow much
better integration, while simple apps can ignore what they don't use.

Otherwise advanced features of time management wouldn't not just be
ignored, but files would also get corrupted if one app edits data in a
way which doesn't match the original app's data structure

 Note that there are no "integrity contrains" in Tracker, so technically an application could "corrupt" your data (set the due date of a tasks after the due date of the project...). A proper ontology design can minimize this risk, for example making very clear what is the meaning of each property and how to use it, but there is no enforcement.

 Regards,

Ivan