The Clerezza team were all notified about the effort to put a common RDF API together on GitHub and they responded positively at that point. The only sticking point then and now IMO is the purely academic distinction of opening up internal labels for blank nodes versus not opening it up at all. Reto is against having the API allow access to the identifiers on academic grounds, where other systems pragmatically allow it with heavily worded javadoc contracts about their limited usefulness, per the RDF specifications:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/clerezza-dev/201406.mbox/%3c5398b07c.5000...@apache.org%3E However, for some more background we could refer back to discussion about restructuring both Clerezza and Stanbol to make them more maintainable and useful to the community: https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stanbol-dev/201211.mbox/%3CCAA7LAO2X++Uk8PoNM+b9=f9v2dn5zdzljh2bje0mmrzcyaf...@mail.gmail.com%3E In particular, as Rupert Westenthaler mentions there, the goal to simply promote the Clerezza RDF model as commons.rdf would not achieve much given the share that Jena and Sesame have. The Commons RDF effort that Sergio has brokered, including Andy (Jena) and I (Sesame), and including both Scala (w3c/banana-rdf@github) and Clojure (drlivingston/kr@github) project representatives will provide the common JVM RDF API that Rupert referred to as being necessary. The main points as I see it that are necessary before starting the process that was aborted last time (echoing Sergio's comments): * Mailing list clutter: both in terms of the wide range of technical discussions from commons rdf, and general email traffic from other commons sub-projects discouraging potential participants from joining in the discussion. * Being able to use GitHub pull requests for code review, including if necessary the sending of comments there to the apache mailing list that is decided to be used for that purpose. The actual merging will be done by hand in this case, but the code review features there are too useful. The patching of PR comments back to apache mailing lists has already done, so there is no technical issue for this, just deciding which mailing list the comments will go to. * Having it okay that the commons rdf api is a project that principally aims to create a set of interfaces, and not host any of the scalable implementations of the API. Stian Soiland-Reyes has written a basic implementation, but in practice, any large dataset will not load into that implementation and be queried efficiently, so it is only going to be used for small in-memory tasks. I hope there is no bad blood from the aborted effort last time. There were a variety of causes, including the reasons above but we all joined the GitHub discussion with the goal of hosting the project inside of the Apache Foundation and IMO Apache Commons is still likely the best way to do that for our small (in terms of code) project. Cheers, Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
