Hi Andy, thanks for bringing the discussion back to the point where it started.
Here is my view: If Clerezza can not graduate then the sources should be moved into the archive. The Stanbol community can then freely fork from there and take what it is needed. Other communities who also use Clerezza may do the same to keep their projects working (it is not only a matter for Stanbol). Clerezza committers are more than welcome to join Stanbol and help to migrate the parts of Clerezza that are useful for Stanbol. I agree with Rupert that the best way to do it, is to set up branches to explore different development paths. Maybe Clerezza will be able to graduate if they focus on a smaller set of components. But this is a discussion for the Clerezza dev list. Best, - Fabian 2012/11/14 Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> > The original issue was about whether migrating (part of) Clerezza into > Stanbol made sense. The concern raised was resourcing. > > Coupling this to new API design is making the resourcing more of a > problem, not less. > > If I understand the discussion .... > > Short term:: > > Can Clerezza achieve graduation? > > Or not, does splitting out the part of Clerezza that Stanbol depends on > work? (I sense "yes" with little work needed). Maintaining such > transferred code was raised as a concern - e.g. SPARQL 1.1 access. > > Long term:: > > Where does this leave Stanbol? Does the maintenance cost concern remain? > or even get worse? > > I don't have sufficient knowledge of the codebase to know what the balance > is between fine-grained API work and query-based access (and update). > > How important is switching between (e.g.) storage providers? > > (local storage - remote would be SPARQL so stanbol-client-code and > other-server can be chosen separately - that's why we do standards!) > > Andy > > -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
