[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]