Re: [Tracker] The Utopian idea, Tracker as it should be

[Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com>]

On 17/09/14 23:29, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 17/09/2014 20:43, Ivan Frade wrote:
>
> [cut mine]
>
>
> > Some thoughts about the ontology:
> >
> > 1) KDE is not using nepomuk anymore:
> > https://community.kde.org/Baloo#Baloo.2C_Nepomuk.2C_KDE_Platform_4_and_KF5

I read this some months back but IMO, I this is a step backwards. The 
link also says nothing about what they're moving to (technically) and I 
think their solution will lack expression.

I agree with their point about Nepomuk lacking in some areas, but we got 
around that by extending it where necessary.

> That's because we screwed up! I think we really need to
> discuss this again this with the people at KDE. I'm really sure they
> have the same ideas about things to be stored as we have.

Maybe, but I don't think it will make any difference.
I personally think it's better to have common schema for the DB designed 
and standardised by Nepomuk. Going it on your own (like KDE) will always 
have shortcomings.

> I'm also sure that other industries, like automotive, among others,
> also have the same ideas. And I think Nepomuk must be shared.

This is where I think they're missing the point. Desktop is quite 
different to embedded and I often hear about people using areas of the 
ontology in ways I didn't think would be used or that I thought were 
superfluous.

> I am advocating support for multiple ontologies technically. But
> philosophically I want but one shared ontology. That includes for the
> people at automotive. Listen to me: share the ontology. I will work on
> creating a central place for maintenance on that.

I think a "base" is a good way to begin, like Ivan says, some are 
absolutely mandatory, like rdfs:Resource etc.

Building on top of that is the way to go so you can have a modular 
approach and add only schema details you need for your project.

> Whether you like it or not, Ivan, you have made yourself the expert in
> the world on the Nepomuk ontology. I personally give my advisory to
> whoever wants to for you to become maintainer of that upstream Nepomuk
> ontology project.

I would be happy to do the technical parts and have council from people 
like Jürg, Ivan and you Philip.

> > 2) Previous attempts of sharing the ontology maintenance failed
> > because of bizantine discussions for any change. It wasn't worthy
> > when Tracker was the only serious (as shipping a product) user of
> > them.
>
> That's because we didn't take the lead. We need to take the lead. Do
> it. Don't hope for it to be done. Do it. We. Ourselves.

I think Philip is right here. I also think we've been remiss in 
upstreaming our ideas and keeping ourselves up to date.

--
Regards,
Martyn

Founder & Director @ Lanedo GmbH.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martynrussell