[Digikam-devel] What do we want to store in the database?

[Marcel Wiesweg]

> Here's my personal summary after reading the thread:
>
>    o keep it simple, so digikam for KDE4 is not delayed forever.
>      There's much going on in meta data handling for KDE4 and
>      it's easier to help enhance it if stuff is missing instead
>      of trying to solve it (again).

Yes!! I fully agree

>
>    o Generic fields.  I'm implies for me that that fields are
>      self describing so one can write a generic browser (e.g.
>      'old' ldap comes to my mind here).

Sounds like strigi/nepomuk

>
>    o kipi metadata interface.  IMHO they don't belong into digikam's
>      database.  They should be accessible by every kipi application.
>      Or better by every KDE application -> meta data interfaces
>      in KDE4

You are right we do not want to duplicate nepomuk here. You know there are 
ambitions for an integration of nepomuk with digikam. That is a different 
story for know than choosing the fields we want to store in the db.
We dont want to compete with nepomuk, that would be a waste of efforts. 

We have an application that is specialized in digital photos, and we want to 
do some things the way we do it. For some fields we have much more 
fine-grained support than any generic framework would ever want to have, and 
we have functionality that knows the meaning of certain fields.

>
> Just my 2 cents,
> Achim