Hi I am more with Fabian. The fact is that Clerezza has not much activity. I am a Clerezza Committer myself and the reason why I am rather inactive is because I have enough things to do for Stanbol. This will also not much change in the future. Moving the Clerezza modules to Stanbol does not solve this problem. It does only move it from Clerezza over to Stanbol.
- RDF libs: If Clerezza is no longer actively developed, than Stanbol should - in the long term - switch to an other RDF framework. RDF is not core feature of Stanbol so we should rather use existing stuff than manage our own. So "if" Clerezza can not graduate, than the scenario mentioned by Fabian seams also likely to me. - Linked Data Platform: Reto I guess you have missed this presentation [1] at ApacheCon. IMO a Linked Data Platform is something that deserves an own project and as soon as there is such a Platform available we should use it in Stanbol. This would allow us to remove a lot of code in Stanbol (especially in the Entityhub) - a good thing as it allows to focus more on core features of Stanbol. best Rupert [1] http://www.slideshare.net/Wikier/incubating-apache-linda On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> -- | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 | A-5500 Bischofshofen
