[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-promo
Subject:    Re: [kde-promo] Article about Baloo
From:       Stuart Jarvis <jarvis () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-02-18 15:24:32
Message-ID: 2191435.Wt86dvGKLj () pecksniff ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 18 February 2014 15:51:50 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 14:20:57 Stuart Jarvis wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 14:54:04 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 14:30:13 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> Lets not quibble on semantics.

> -D to getting 'semantics' into the email. Ok, let's leave that point \
> there.
 
> Nepomuk undeniably has visibility. Keeping continuity in that would have
> made a number of things rather more simple going forward.
> 
> > In this particular case, there are some major things changing - it's a \
> > big switch that might leave some applications currently needing \
> > Nepomuk. I'm not
> Given that Nepomuk is being left behind by the developers who were \
> working on it, this seems inadvisable. As yet another cost in the \
> renaming exercise, we now have developers who will more likely feel the \
> need to spend time examining the change and whether to adopt or not \
> rather than simply accepting it as the next step in this technology's \
> life cycle. 
> > sure it can be done completely unannounced, with no public change (in
> > name/terminology).
> 
> It should be announced; it's the change in naming and terminology that is \
> at issue.

Ok, I misunderstood you.

> > It could be done perhaps with a Nepomuk v1 versus
> > Nepomuk v2 kind of distinction (hey, maybe that would have been \
> > better). I
> 
> That's actually what I suggested previously.
> 
> > too think it's late for that now - particularly as the name Baloo is \
> > out there (from use on the mailing list, apparently) - but I'm willing \
> > to be convinced.
> 
> I'm not sure it is too late; Baloo could be positioned as the ‘backend' \
> for Nepomuk storage, in much the same way as strigi was replaced with a \
> Nepomuk- specific solution, and Nepomuk 2 could be ‘born'.

That would be rather easy to do, within the existing draft article. It \
would  be little more than replacing 'Nepomuk' in many places with \
'Nepomuk's  existing storage backend'.

The one sticking point is the part of the article where we talk about 
migration of data and the possibility (not advised) of running both \
systems,  but that can be dealt with in a similar way, particularly if \
migration is  automated

In short, the more I think about it (and think about counter arguments) I'm \
 coming round to your point of view. Except that I don't think mentioning 
version 1 vs version 2 (for example) makes sense, because 'Nepomuk' here is \
 not so much the software as the concept/capability for semantic search \
etc, as  it was in the original research project - instead talk of backends \
seems  cleaner.

In that case, the title might be:
"KDE Unveils Next Generation Semantic Search Backend"

I'd still be inclined to mention Baloo by name in the article, but position \
as  "the new backend to semantic search, replacing Nepomuk's existing \
backend".

Jos, Carl, others - what are your thoughts?

> If it is deemed "too late", then we can at least learn from this so that \
> in future things are handled differently.

Yep. 

_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.

Visit https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set \
digest on or temporarily stop your subscription.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]