Thank you for reply. The Stanbol Airavata comparison is probably an grapefruit and oranges comparison as you say. But, if one is assembling a fruit basket, I guess selecting the variety of fruit to be included is okay.
I will continue to study to find similarities, differences, and compatibility between the Stanbol and Airavata worlds. ComputeFactory did not go forward to proposal - the team wanted to go a different direction. The direction of team interest became DetailMania (can be referenced from http://Aurorae-tech.appspot.com But, ComputeFactory is still simmering on the back burner. As opportunities arrive, we hope to turn up the heat and share any accomplishments. Have a super day. On May 30, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Ray, > > Very fascinating trouble indeed, Can we make the RockCrusher answer this? > Sorry pun intended. > > If I understood what you are trying to achieve, Stanbol (or Stanbol-Rave > combination) might be a better fit, I say this simple because Airavata as of > today doesn't deal directly with Semantic Technologies or Ontologies and > might be a hard fit into the mix. In the pre-apache days, Airavata has some > experimental student projects to overlay OWL on Airavata XBaya but they did > not make it into main code base. Also there are research groups who study > Semantic integration in service based architectures like the WSDL-S advocacy > groups. > > Back to your trouble, in this case you may not be comparing apple vs oranges > but certainly not oranges vs oranges (may be oranges and grapefruit). Even > otherwise, there are numerous examples of redundant framework and > implementations (like Axis2 and CXF). From an apache standpoint, its totally > fine to have them co-exist as long as community is rallying behind. Otherwise > they naturally weed out. I do not think any project will be averse to re-use, > but they need a interesting and motivated contributors like yourself to > champion integration. If you look at many ASF projects, a code gets > bootstrapped, a community is formed around it, from there on, code follows > community not other way around. So the way to look at this problem is there > are two distinct communities doing different things with identical software > tools. This is totally ok. But if there are two communities doing the same > thing but with two different tools, they need to be talking to each other. We > will appreciate if you can help bridge such communities. > > BTW, I am curious to learn about your progress on the ComputeFactory > integrations, how did that go? anything we can help? > > Suresh > > > On May 30, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Ray Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> HI >> >> I have a very troubling question for myself. I do not wish to be ungracious >> - my question is meant only with good intention. I probably am missing the >> intuitive answer to my question. >> >> Background: >> My interests can be found at http://aurorae-tech.appspot.com >> >> I am considering the creation of a system as i am beginning to describe in >> the attached. >> I definitely do not wish to create my own framework. But, getting >> reasonably skilled at a framework represents a considerable learning curve. >> >> Please only take a moment of your time to consider my question. I continue >> to study and in the next near time frame i may be able to answer my own >> question. >> >> Thank you very much. >> >> p.s. for an anecdote of the project name, read >> http://aurorae-wiki.appspot.com/Rationale_and_expectations >> <RockCrusher.pdf> >
