From kde-promo Tue Feb 18 20:12:38 2014 From: Jos Poortvliet Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:12:38 +0000 To: kde-promo Subject: Re: [kde-promo] Article about Baloo Message-Id: <1594742.Bdk36mSrNz () linux-606j> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-promo&m=139275405631105 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============7305369369131316856==" --===============7305369369131316856== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1537023.WQUpRhEn5K"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --nextPart1537023.WQUpRhEn5K Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Tuesday 18 February 2014 21:09:21 Jos Poortvliet wrote: > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 15:24:32 Stuart Jarvis wrote: > > 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 poi= nt > > : > > :there.: > > > Nepomuk undeniably has visibility. Keeping continuity in that wou= ld > > > have > > > made a number of things rather more simple going forward. > > >=20 > > > > In this particular case, there are some major things changing -= it's > > > > a > > > > big > > > > switch that might leave some applications currently needing Nep= omuk. > > > > I'm > > > > not > > >=20 > > > Given that Nepomuk is being left behind by the developers who wer= e > > > working > > > on it, this seems inadvisable. As yet another cost in the renamin= g > > > exercise, we now have developers who will more likely feel the ne= ed to > > > spend time examining the change and whether to adopt or not rathe= r than > > > simply accepting it as the next step in this technology=E2=80=99s= life cycle. > > >=20 > > > > sure it can be done completely unannounced, with no public chan= ge (in > > > > name/terminology). > > >=20 > > > It should be announced; it=E2=80=99s the change in naming and ter= minology that > > > is > > > at issue. > >=20 > > Ok, I misunderstood you. > >=20 > > > > It could be done perhaps with a Nepomuk v1 versus > > > > Nepomuk v2 kind of distinction (hey, maybe that would have been= > > > > better). I > > >=20 > > > That=E2=80=99s actually what I suggested previously. > > >=20 > > > > too think it's late for that now - particularly as the name Bal= oo is > > > > out > > > > there (from use on the mailing list, apparently) - but I'm will= ing to > > > > be > > > > convinced. > > >=20 > > > I=E2=80=99m not sure it is too late; Baloo could be positioned as= the =E2=80=98backend=E2=80=99 > > > for Nepomuk storage, in much the same way as strigi was replaced = with a > > > Nepomuk- specific solution, and Nepomuk 2 could be =E2=80=98born=E2= =80=99. > >=20 > > 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'. > >=20 > > The one sticking point is the part of the article where we talk abo= ut > > 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 > >=20 > > In short, the more I think about it (and think about counter argume= nts) > > 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, becaus= e > > 'Nepomuk' here is not so much the software as the concept/capabilit= y for > > semantic search etc, as it was in the original research project - > > instead talk of backends seems cleaner. > >=20 > > In that case, the title might be: > > "KDE Unveils Next Generation Semantic Search Backend" > >=20 > > 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". > >=20 > > Jos, Carl, others - what are your thoughts? >=20 > To me, it sounds like a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution. I a= lways > like those. The article already mentions that the API's and widgets a= re > simply taken from Nepomuk. For application developers and many users = they > are the FACE of Nepomuk. So, we kept Nepomuk. The backend is changed = =2D > from Virtuoso to an abstraction layer called Baloo. >=20 > Sounds like good spin if you ask me ;-) If there are no strong objections to this and if Vishesh likes it, we c= ould=20 move with this. As I'll meet Vishes at conf.kde.in, perhaps I can sit d= own=20 with him there, hack this proposal in the text and release the article = next=20 Monday... --nextPart1537023.WQUpRhEn5K Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlMDvrYACgkQ+wgQ1AD35iwRLgCdEtMe1a/qKxhINfkm6hP2VMqb McsAnjIyTwczBFG5B61dFR24Eb6wTByB =MKBO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1537023.WQUpRhEn5K-- --===============7305369369131316856== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 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. --===============7305369369131316856==--