On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 06:00:38PM +0100, Olivier Berger wrote: > (message about UDD, CC-ed to qa list, although I'm not so sure it > belongs here) It does belong here. At the end of the SOC which firstly developed UDD, we proposed to use -qa as the forum for UDD-discussions and nobody objected. Also, IIRC, -qa is the contact point for UDD mentioned on wiki.d.o (can't check, because I'm writing while offline). > I've just already responded (Message-Id: > <1234456666.7959.46.camel@hortense>) to Enrico Zini on d-d@l.d.o > about the lack of semantics (in the sense of Semantic Web standards > used to convey ontological references, like RDF schema, etc.) in the > outputs of DDE, so this message's subject is quite similar. > > I guess the same kind of criticism indeed transitively applies to > UDD (DDE exports UDD data, IIUC). So I guess I should reply in the same vein :-), that the criticism does not apply here either. More precisely, it does not apply *inside* UDD, but nothing forbids you to develop a semantics for UDD (in whatever language you want, web-ontologies being just one of the possibilities) externally to it. Actually, I'm also personally interested in doing that, even though I insist that it is not something that should be added *inside* UDD. > I have written a short piece on the subject > (http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/weblog/2009/02/10/udd-swim-flossmetrics-facts-databases-about-libre-software-distributions-going-semantic/) > after the FOSDEM, and I'd like to get your comments on these ideas. Sorry but I don't have the article with me, but I will reply as soon as I've a chance to read it. > Of course, more semantics may not be necessary from the strict > immediate needs of Debian-specific tools. But I imagine that using > standard representation formats (for the same semantics of similar > objects), QA tools could be "ported" from distributions to other > distributions, and eventually manage inter-distributions data. That's the essence of my reply to your DDE criticism: semantic is surely needed for interoperability, but rarely (with exceptions!) for internal purposes. That's why I believe we should piggyback semantics on top of UDD yet externally, instead of internally into it. Now, back to how do that, I believe the main problem you will face is how to identify the objects in UDD, given that they potentially change daily and they don't have URIs identifying them. I see various possibility to achieve that, the first one is for you to develop some URI scheme which internalizes the keys used inside UDD. For example, to reference a binary package for a specific arch, you can use some URI scheme containing binary package name, version, and architecture. You should do something similar for all keys of all packages (maybe you can come up with a generic URI scheme also including the UDD relation name?). Alternatively, we can think together at URIs uniquely identifying tuples in each UDD table, and add an extra URI field to each such table. De facto, such new field will be a new key for the table, and you can use it to state facts (i.e., "triples" in the RDF lingo) about such objects. I tend to prefer the latter option, how about you? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature