Rehi, With the release of parent 6 we are in principle ready to relase the clerezza-rdf-core projects. I've made good progress porting a lot of modules to the new rdf-core, some remaining issues there (i.e. outside rdf-core) are mainly related to the changes in scala version and the scr plugin.
So there are two issues left: - Using the package org.apache.commons.rdf is an advantage to be as close as possible to the future rdf commons, but an obvious disadvantage if this is not going to become or converge into commons rdf, and clerezza-commons remains an alternative or an extension to apache commons rdf. - The casing is still an issue, should we keep it at is now, change it to use the same casing as the github/incubator proposal? Change all of clerezza to a casing convention that results? Cheers, Reto On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Reto Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I hope some of you could have a look at the recent commits in the > rdf-common branch. The umbrella issue CLEREZZA-960 shows the progress in > porting clerezza components to clerezza RDF commons. > > The release order should ideally be as follows: > - Clerezza parent: Updating java version, removing scr plugin, and others > - rdf-commons-api and rdf-commons-imp-uils > - rdf.core > - rdf.jena.commons, rdf.jena.facade, rdf.jena.parser > - rdf.schemagen, maven-ontologies-plugin, rdf.ontologies > - rdf.testutils, rdf.utils > > We could start releasing the parent or we make a vote on all of them > together. It should happen fast as the current situation is not > satisfactory, one has to first compile the parent from our main repository > before the clerrezza-rdf-core repository can be compiled. > > Basically the code is there, following issues are still open: > - make rdf-commons--* OSGi bundles (easy) > - naming of artifacts (currently > org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-api) > - package name, currently org.apache.commons.rdf to be as close as > possible to the expected rdf commons > - casing: the github code the incubating commons wants to adopt uses all > uppercase acronyms (e.g. IRI, RDFTerm), on the mailing list[1] the idea of > casng acronyms like normal words (as clerezza does) found some support, but > other wants to keep the all uppercase for now). So the question is if we > should use (as in the current code) the clerezza way of casing (Iri, > RdfTerm) or switch to uppercase acronyms. > > Please have a look at the above issue and ideally the code and let me know > if and how you think things should be changed. > > Cheers, > Reto > > 1. > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-commonsrdf-dev/201503.mbox/%3CCALvhUEUg5_xvkYJPUPBhtmbbYT2ns1XoHXrNZhd64od6h48jvA%40mail.gmail.com%3E >
