Re: [Tracker] trackerbird fixes

[Ivan Frade <ivan frade gmail com>]

Hi!

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com> wrote:

On 10/02/14 12:06, Michael Lipp wrote:I think it depends on how close the tracker project wants to follow the

specification (or how far it wants to deviate from them).

We've not really been actively following the spec for a while, mainly because we had our own alterations in the earlier days and we've just not kept up to speed with them.

Which is also why I CCd Ivan/Jürg, because they've been following the spec more closely in the past.

I may be completely wrong and maybe http://www.semanticdesktop.org/
isn't the "standards body" for this stuff. But trying to understand
things better, I came across their site. And looking at

I believe it is the standards body / location indeed.

 Indeed. The standard was (is?) missing parts we needed and others were not usable, but we could not find a good way to contribute in the standard so we keep our version of the ontologies.

http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/2007/03/22/nmo/#Message I
found that they do NOT consider nmo:Message to be a nfo:TextDocument.
Rather, if you look at

It's entirely possible that we either fashioned the ontology to suite Nokia and their text messaging/emailing/etc requirements back in the day OR that the Nepomuk ontologies back then were less refined and things have changed. I don't know which is more accurate.

I just recall a lot of time being spent on this area of the ontology because it was vital for the N9 to have these data relationships defined well.

 

 Checking git log... it seems that subclass relation has been there since the initial commit of the ontology in 2009, but I think we never did any real use of it.

wonder which ones are relevant for the project or whether the project
has designed its own relationships. In the later case, just to put my
two cents in, I think the specification is right. Technically, almost
everything in computing can be considered -- or at least converted to --
a text document, of course. But if I send someone a plan email, and ask
the next day "did you get the document that I mailed you?" then I
suppose at least nine out of ten people will answer "no, there was not
attachment".

I would be happy to make the change if I knew it wouldn't cause any nasty side effects.

Jürg, Ivan, any comment to add here?

 The inheritance from TextDocument is debatable but it is not harmful and changing it now would be an API break (somebody can use lineCount on their messages). So I would keep it like it is.

 Regards,

Ivan