On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 1:51 PM Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:46:00 +0000, Ian Dunlop <ianwdun...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Eg Tavmob#68 looked like it was ready to merge but Sagar wanted the
> > committer to use RxJava/Retrofit patterns in it. I probably wouldn’t
> > mind so much.
>
> Agreed that the pattern should not be too important.
>
> Sagar, can we merge #68 as-is?
>

This PR is not merged because this PR might produce runtime expception
because of asynctask.


>
> > #93 looks like there is a library missing so it failed to build in
> > travis.
>
> I saw you closed this :)
>
>
> > “Although our use of Creative Commons should be allowed by Legal's
> > resolved FAQ, we recognize that IPMC feelings are otherwise, so we'll
> > have to recode to avoid including these schema files.”
> >
> > It’s not clear to me what the approach should be. Are you saying that
> > legal think it is ok but the IPMC don’t? If so then shouldn’t legal
> > and IPMC discuss this issue and get some clarity – did this happen?
>
> From https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b any CC-BY
> files can be used, but should be included as binaries to avoid
> confusion.
>
> We could maybe package the CC-BY files as *.ttl.gz to force them to be
> 'binaries'.  I think that should still load well with Jena.
>
>
> However the FAQ also says:
>
> > For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF
> > product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is
> > unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being
> > specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is
> > also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd,
> > whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces
> > specification.
>
> For Taverna Language this is exactly the case as it is mainly Research
> Object and Dublin Core ontologies loaded at runtime with Jena.
>
> <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-language/blob/master/taverna-robundle/src/main/java/org/apache/taverna/robundle/manifest/RDFToManifest.java
> >
>
> In theory it should be possible to do this code without loading the
> ontologies, as I don't think we use any inferencing here, rather the
> code is loading the properties/classes from the ontology to ensure
> the names are correct.
>
> But we can instead hard-code the bits from the vocbulary we use 'blind'
> (This would however not detect vocabulary mistakes such as
> dcterms:tittle )
>
> This would mean some rewrite of RDFToManifest.
>
>
> > “So do you think we need to look again at that idea of putting them in
> Taverna Extras on GitHub and then pull them down at build-time as Maven
> > dependencies?“
> > Is this now the only option and if so what does it involve. Let’s just
> get it done. (I’ve got the feeling I starting looking into this but got
> distracted by reality).
>
> Yes, making a new Maven dependency or something that we manage outside
> would avoid the problem. It's perfectly fine to use CC-BY (Category B)
> code as a dependency.
>
> Although it may feel a bit silly to have to do this with just a few
> schema files that the FAQ says we can distribute, but it would make a
> clearer distinction between Apache-licensed code and third-party code,
> as with other dependencies.
>
>
> So we have three options:
>
> 1) Cheeky *.gz binaries in source code
> 2) Rewrite code to hard-code namespace and avoid dependencies
> 3) Package on GitHub (Taverna Extra)
>
>
> #1 has the risk of IPMC folks tripping again as we would still need to
>    include CC-BY in LICENSE
>
> #2 will take a bit of developer time and makes it harder to do changes
>    safely - but both code and ontologies are now stable
>
> #3 mean "we" (Apache Taverna community) have to maintain Maven deploys
>    (or other kind of deploy) outside Apache so that Apache Taverna can
>    depend on it. Again these are unlikely to change much so it's more of
>    an one-off per schema.
>
>
> Before I suggested #2 but unfortunately I have not come round to try
> this out.
>
> Which one shall we go for?
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> The University of Manchester
> https://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>

-- 

Warmest regards
Sagar
Software Developer
Lattice Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

Reply via email to