Excellent and thank you, I was stuck on a thing device all day :). Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2012, at 5:27 PM, Suat Gonul <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
