On 14 Nov 2012 18:36, "Rupert Westenthaler" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - 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
