Do I understand rightly that one eventual consequence of this architecture will be that content items might be stored in some external service with a standardized interface (say, a JCR repository) and semantic-indexed into another external service?
The diagram attached to the main issue shows Solr as the implementing component for the semantic-index. Is there expected to be a possibility to use an RDF store in that role? (In the way that one can choose Solr or Clerezza to back a yard in the the EntityHub?) Lastly, can you point me to the interfaces that will be actually be used to store an item? The reason I am asking is that I am wondering about asynchronizing behavior (for example, for very large content items or very high-latency storage). This looks like really excellent work! --- A. Soroka Software & Systems Engineering :: Online Library Environment the University of Virginia Library On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Suat Gönül wrote: > Hi Stephane, > > The parent issue for this structure is STANBOL-471[1]. You can find an > image within that issue representing the general structure offered by the > 2-layered approach. The parent issue has some sub-issues. Especially, in > STANBOL-498 and STANBOL-499, you can find detailed information regarding to > the mentioned two layers. Once, I had written a mail mentioning about this > structure at [2]. Please note that some of the class names have changed > since that mail. > > The main purpose of this approach is to separate the storage and indexing > functionalities of Contenthub. However, it seems that these changes can be > adapted throughout the Stanbol.For instance, Rupert has already developed > some Store implementations in the scope of Entityhub(see STANBOL-704), > although they are not in the final state yet. This separation will allow to > implement different SemanticIndex implementations for different use cases > based on the same Store keeping some items. There can also be different > Store implementations. For instance a Clerezza graph can be used as a Store > or another Store implementation can be implemented as a bridge between > Stanbol and a real content management system, etc. > > As solr version, we use the one specified in the parent pom.xml of the > Stanbol. And it is currently 3.2.0. > > Hope this helps, best, > Suat > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-471 > [2] http://markmail.org/message/o4quthsuubhlswtz > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Stéphane Gamard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Suat, >> >> Can I ask you to point me to some doc about the 2-layer service? What >> is its purpose? And another question is about the solr version used, >> which one is it? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stephane >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Oct 12, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Suat Gonul <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Fabian, >>> >>> I am planning to make a release for Contenthub. We have done some >>> updates on the this component in the "trunk" since the 0.9.0-incubating >>> release. However, as you know there is also a new structure for >>> Contenthub in the "contenthub-two-layered-branch". Although, the work in >>> the branch is still in progress and the changes in the trunk are not so >>> much, I would like to make a release of Contenthub before merging that >>> branch into to the trunk. >>> >>> Currently, we are doing some improvements on Contenthub in the trunk. >>> Once that job is done, we can prepare a release. WDYT? >>> >>> Best, >>> Suat >>> >>> On 10/12/2012 12:10 AM, Fabian Christ wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am investigating the components that should go for a release in the >>>> near future. We should try to bring as much components to a 1.0 status >>>> as possible. After graduation it would be a good sign to start and >>>> establish a release cycle. >>>> >>>> My first release candidate would be the Enhancer with all Enhancement >>>> Engines. So I will check the Enhancer and engines if all requirements >>>> for a release are met (license, POMs, etc). >>>> >>>> What about other components? Please, make suggestions as I do not have >>>> a detailed overview of the status of all the code parts and branches. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> - Fabian >>> >>
