On 12/20/14 4:28 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Hi, > > Apache Commons serves a specific purpose for collaboration amongst > Apache projects.
Commons is a project itself, too. We have quite a few components that originated here. We love to encourage collaboration across the ASF, but that is not our only or even our primary focus. Like every other ASF project, our focus is on growing and sustaining community around the code that we work on here. The question we always ask about new component ideas is can we grow and sustain a community around them. If the code is coming from other ASF projects, we need to make sure that between their communities and ours we can generate enough energy to keep things moving. Just like in the Incubator, the "there are already n other great foo things" argument is only relevant if it means that we aren't going to be able to build a community around foo_n+1. > There is already collaboration between projects in Apache in the > RDF space. We have projects using each others releases (Clerezza > uses Jena; Stanbol use Clerezza and specifically the Jena > providers; we all use org/apache/commons/commons-* [+]). Great, but irrelevant to the question of whether there is community interest in a Commons RDF component (I mean an Apache Commons component named commons-rdf. In retrospect, we should have anticipated the name disambiguation problem. At this point, users may end up confused if we move forward in Commons and the community does not end up combining.) > > Several of the RDF-using Apache projects (Marmotta, Any23) use a > toolkit from outside Apache. Spanning that is an objective for > commons-rdf. > > We came here originally. We found that there is a Commons way of > doing things. Collaborating with those external people was not > going to work within the confines of Apache Commons - nothing > wrong with that, Commons isn't aiming to be a sole place of > collaboration anywhere. How exactly did you come to that conclusion? The only things I see in the archives are *ASF* "ways of doing things" - using ASF SCM repos - now Git is available, discussion on mailing lists, etc. > > Collaboration does not happen by setting up more places nor > without establishing common understanding. I do think that claims > and assertions should have objective evidence. The RDF standards > are one external frame of reference we have to understand the > claims in this area. I think that progress can happen if we > provide explanation and evidence alongside position statements > regarding the correctness or otherwise of other groups work. Then > maybe we will understand each other a little better. > > Andy > > [+] Personal "thank you" to commons-csv which made my life easier > recently. > > On 19/12/14 21:09, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >> Hello, >> >> we (the Apache Commons Project) don't know the RDF standard or >> any existing >> implementations. We just provide a possibility for other projects >> to share >> code. If it is currently not clear how to share RDF library code, >> or what >> should be included, this should be discussed. Creating a new sandbox >> component and importing initial code is a good way to do this. >> >> That been said, I consider this discussion as exactly what we've >> intended >> by opening Commons for all committers: sharing code, discussing >> code, >> inter-project collaboration. >> >> Regards, >> Benedikt > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
