On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Rupert Westenthaler < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > I'm also involved in the fusepool.eu project which will need a platform providing more than the current stanbol HTTP endpoits but real REST endpoints for humans and machines. Also security and a plugable and optional UI are needed. If Stanbol want to go in this direction then it would be good to integrate the parts of Clerezza providing this. >From adding security to Stanbol I've seen that things gets messing with the too so similar projects. > > - 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. > I don't think this can really be compared. Clerezza is already quite close to comfroming with the Linked Data Platform Specification. It has a lightweigh arcitecture very similar to Stanbol based on OSGi. By contrast Salzburg Research Marmotta/Linda proposal is a Java Enterprise application that ceratinly could use some stanbol services but which has a quite different architecture. The W3C LDP isn't describing a heavy weight architecture but a set of recommendation on how to use the REST principles in the context of linked data. If stanbol wants to provide the promised RESTfull services it should strive for compliance with LDP specifications. Cheers, Reto
