Hi. FYI, I've been working on adding some RDF descriptions of source packages to the PTS (committed in SVN, not yet in production).
The RDF models : - a source packaging "project" for each source package - the different revisions of the source known by the PTS - for the one in unstable (as the PTS does), links to the upstream and debian versions and the source package files - a description of the upstream project (would need more than the Homepage: link or name to match against) - pointers to the Ubuntu packaging couterpart and revision known by the PTS. You'll hopefully see a coloured version of an example for apache2 in [1]. More details on debian-qa, in Message-ID: <878vd4b7gw....@inf-8657.int-evry.fr> (thread at [0]). Maybe we should really create this RDF metadata of Debian project on alioth or somewhere else to coordinate ? Who would be interested to participate ? Best regards, [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2012/08/msg00099.html [1] http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/weblog/2012/08/24/generating-rdf-description-of-debian-package-sources-with-adms-sw/ Olivier Berger <olivier.ber...@it-sudparis.eu> writes: > I think it would help here, to adopt standards for more interoperability > of Debian's metadata with others'. > The "package metadata" could even be delivered on the Web of Data > (Linked Open Data), right from the Debian servers, to allow any > application to be created, that would consume such metadata. > > If RDF/XML (as seems to be proposed by SPDX, to be verified once the > Linux Foundation site is back) is not suitable, then another format > would be great as long as it relies on some explicit prefix+suffix > combination, in order to allow for extensibility, for instance some JSON > variant of RDF like Turtle [1]. > > If a package can both be described with some generic purpose > "ontology"/standard/schema (for instance the one you envisioned > initially in DEP 11), and also, depending on context (embedded or > science, for instance) with another set of metadata (spdx or whatever > else), you'd be able to mix in the same file, metadata relating to > different contexts. > > Still, I'm not sure RFC822-style is perfectly compliant with the habit > of RDF to separate prefix and suffix with a column character ':'. Maybe > '_' could act as such a separator (must say I haven't checked the RFC > for allowed tokens in the grammar) ? > > Let's try with an example (btw, the DEP > http://wiki.debian.org/AppStreamDebianProposal *lacks* examples IMHO) : > > In turtle representation format for RDF, one would have a document that > looks like this : > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>. > @prefix dep11: <http://www.debian.org/whatever/dep11#>. > @prefix debbugs: <http://www.debian.org/whatever/depxx#>. > @prefix spdx: <http://spdx.org/ontology#>. > > <http://packages.qa.debian.org/iceweasel> > a dep11:DebianPackage; > dep11:application "Iceweasel"; > dep11:package "iceweasel"; > spdx:license "MPL-1.1" > debbugs:bugs <http://bugs.debian.org/iceweasel>. > > (Maybe I didn't understand very well the Application and Package > meanings in your DEP11 proposal, btw.) > > Anyway, as you can see, here we could have several "domains" of metadata > sources (ontologies / prefixes) to describe the same package combined in > a single document. > > In RFC822-style, this could be something like : > > DEP11_Application: Iceweasel > DEP11_Package: iceweasel > spdx_license: MPL-1.1 > debbugs_bugs: http://bugs.debian.org/iceweasel > > etc. > > But clearly, not reinventing the wheel should be a goal, and adopting > existing standards for meta-data representation would be my choice, i.e. > Semantic Web standards (namely RDF). > > > Of course, translators from/to different syntaxes will be trivial to > develop, but if, from the source, a proper standard is used, it can be > readily delivered to the Web without any transformation needed. Such an > approach (often called Linked Data), clearly favors interoperability > (more at http://linkeddata.org/guides-and-tutorials if I failed to make > my point). > > > Again, in case you'd doubt it, RDF is just a model, which can be written > in a number of different formats (not only XML), but the key here is the > embedded identification of the reference of the ontologies/prefixes > which render the documents self described and extensible, out of the > box. > > Note that the same rationale stands for all metadata to be eventually > published on the Web by Debian servers. > > Hope this helps. > > Best regards, > > [0] http://www.w3.org/RDF/ > [1] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/ > -- > Olivier BERGER <olivier.ber...@it-sudparis.eu> > http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 > Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF > Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France) -- Olivier BERGER http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/876288b3yk....@inf-8657.int-evry.fr
