Hi,
On 10/12/2012 5:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 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?
Exactly, this kind of Store implementation would wrap the nodes in a JCR
repository as ContentItems and those ContentItems would be indexed in
different SemanticIndexes. We have a plan to provide a basic JCR
compliant Store implementation in the following months.
>
> 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?)
This is also correct. We are already working on a Clerezza based
SemanticIndex implementation, although it is not a yard managed by 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).
Sure. We have three main interfaces for the time being:
* IndexingSource[1]: Read-only indexing source to be used by the
SemanticIndex implementations.
* Store[2]: An extension for the IndexingSource interface providing
create and delete operations.
* SemanticIndex[3]: The interface describing methods to semantically
index items
You can find the current implementations for these interface for the
ContentItem type in the following links:
* FileStore[4]: This Store implementation serializes ContentItems into
the zip files and store in the file system.
* SolrSemanticIndex[5]: This is a Solr based SemanticIndex
implementation.
Please note that the current state of these won't compile successfully
since I didn't have time to adjust dependency versions according to
latest changes in the trunk.
Best,
Suat
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/branches/contenthub-two-layered-structure/commons/semanticindex/servicesapi/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/commons/semanticindex/store/IndexingSource.java
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/branches/contenthub-two-layered-structure/commons/semanticindex/servicesapi/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/commons/semanticindex/store/Store.java
[3]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/branches/contenthub-two-layered-structure/commons/semanticindex/servicesapi/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/commons/semanticindex/index/SemanticIndex.java
[4]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/branches/contenthub-two-layered-structure/contenthub/store/file/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/contenthub/store/file/FileStore.java
[5]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/branches/contenthub-two-layered-structure/contenthub/index/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/contenthub/index/solr/SolrSemanticIndex.java
> 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
>
