> I'm tempted to do a radical remodelling of our metadata structure to remove > this kind of ambiguity, even going as far as having conventions like > project-name-is-file-name be gently enforced.
We are rebuilding Gump from the bottom up, so why not do the same with the metadata? I'm game for it. I say we create a Gump3 workspace on Brutus to run the minimum (e.g. up to Ant) and we work and re-work it until we like it. We can throw in all the "rotton" test cases we like, like Jakarata Commons and so forth. Once we like it we can migrate the whole set of metadata, which we could likely script (for 80+%). > Oh, ehm, I was even briefly tempted to turn our model into RDF but there > ain't that many good tools for RDF editing :-D I'm repeating what Iv'e written before, but for my tuppence ... I think folks are most comfortable with XML, even if RDF good sense as a set of statements about a module/project/artifact. I say we stick w/ XML, have us generate RDF triples to match the metadata, and (eventually) allow RDF for input (when we allow Maven descriptors, etc.) regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
