On 17.04.2018 23:00, Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not >>>>> well-maintained. >>>> True >>>> >>>>> As I understand it, these were once used to populate >> projects.apache.org >>>> [1] >>>>> But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if >> I'm >>>>> wrong) >>>> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page: >>>> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html >>>> >>>> >>> It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still >> used, >>> but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated. >>> >>> Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which >> have >>> them. >> I think you are confusing projects with PMCs. >> >> > No. I definitely mean "projects", as in TLP ("Top Level Project"), " > projects.apache.org", and DOAP ("description of a project"). > > The *project* is missing the DOAP, because their *PMC* did not create one. > Yet, nothing seems to be broken. > > >>>>> The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly >> false, >>>>> at the very least. >>>> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking. >>>> >>>> >>> As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are >>> documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them. >>> The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation. >> Why not? >> > [2] is not a substitute for [1], because it does not have any of the > content contained in [1]. > > >> Where should it be documented? >> >> > I don't know... you were the one who pointed to that page, not me. I never > said [2] should be a substitute for [1]. I'm just trying to figure out if > [1] or [2] (or any other DOAP documentation) is relevant *AT ALL*. [1] > describes the original purpose, etc., but it does not seem relevant > anymore, and no other page describes its current relevance. > > >>> So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for >>> purpose, structure, or process to make use of them. >> [2] >> >> > No. [2] doesn't have any of that content. It merely mentions that they > exist and that the PMC is responsible for them. > > >>>>> And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP >> does >>>>> not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it >> exists >>>>> for a project. >>>> Projects.a.o validates them. >>>> >>>> >>> Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is >> useless, >>> so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized. >> projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2] >> >> > Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they > aren't utilized for any other purpose. > > >>>>> My questions are: >>>>> Is a DOAP file required? >>>>> If so, by what policy >>>> No idea >>>> >>>>> and for what purpose? >>>> See [2] >>>> >>>> >>> That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they >> exist >>> and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page >>> which describes itself as containing "historical information", which >>> further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently >>> documented use). >> [2] says: >> >> How The Code Works >> ... from various data sources ... >> 3. Project DOAP files listed in >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/projects.apache.org/data/projects.xml >> >> > Yeah, I know what it says. But it's not true. It doesn't say how it is > used, it doesn't say what purpose it serves currently, and if a project > doesn't have one, nothing seems to be broken. > > So, my questions still stand: > > Are they still required? > If so, by what policy and for what purpose? (not the original purpose, > documented at [1]... but the *current* purpose, which in spite of being > mentioned on [2], does not actually appear to exist).
Given that RDF is no longer the buzzword it was 10 years ago, and Semantic Web aficionados appear to have vanished into the space between microservices, I'd say that: (a) DOAP files should not be required (and never should have been in the first place), and, (b) the sooner they're all gone, the better. -- Brane --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
