rvesse commented on issue #1968: URL: https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/1968#issuecomment-2051506234
> Any update on this case? I ask because my work depends on the final resolution. If approve I will think about free time to prepare PR, If I'm being perfectly honest I think it's mainly because nobody active in the project has enough OWL background/interest to meaningfully review the code. Remember that everyone who is a commuter or PMC member is purely a volunteer, while several of us have $dayjob's that involve working with Jena, none of us is directly paid to do so by our employers to do Jena work. Therefore we all tend to focus our efforts on things that affect us, bugs with widespread impact, or things that are easy to address, thus larger new features that we personally have no need for are hard to find time for. > if reject I would like to know the reasons, in that last case I would improve the library according to the feedback, From glancing over your repository my main concern is that it appears to duplicate a lot of code from ONT-API, presumably to avoid creating a circular dependency since ONT-API already relies on Jena. Could that be achieved differently by making the Jena OWL 2 support a new Jena module that pulls in the dependency on ONT-API (explicitly excluding its own Jena dependency) so you'd get all the supporting code you need from there without duplication? As long as ONT-API is keeping reasonably aligned with Jena releases (and Jena doesn't break any APIs it relies on in a release) things should work. As a general consideration accepting large contributions of this nature is tricky, especially when none of the active committers have the necessary background/interest to maintain it going forward, so we have to try and gauge whether there's enough community interest (beyond you as a contributor) in actually using and maintaining it. > or leave it as is, having opportunity to observe the duplication of the functionality by Jena. Realistically Jena won't get OWL 2 support unless someone like yourself provides a PR for it. So I'm not against this proposal in any sense, I just don't have the background to do anything more than a perfunctory review. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
