Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the main issue. Clerezza could graduate as it is. But imho it would make sense to split clerezza into:
- RDF libs - Linked Data Platform Imho the Semantic Platform that should strive for compliance with LDPWG standards could merge with Apache Stanbol as in fact for many modules it's hard to say were they best belong to. For this the clerezza stuff should not become a branch but a subproject of stanbol that can be released individually if needed. This subproject should become thinner and thinner as more stuff is being moved to the stanbol platform as technologies are being aligned. Discussing if this would be possible should be independent of the RDF API stuff. Cheers, Reto On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Fabian Christ <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 >
