Hi,
On 30/01/15 23:15, Reto Gmür wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote:
Summarizing, we understand that the Apache Commons project wants to keep
the communication rules as they currently are. Though we think that in this
phase of the Commons RDF project, which focuses on the API design and
actively involves the developers of existing toolkits, it is better to have
a more focused community and infrastructure. Therefore we have come to the
conclusion that incubation is probably the best path, and then gradually
prepare the Commons RDF community for working within the larger Apache
Commons community. So we invite everybody to join the project in case you
are interested, particularly the current module at sandbox.
Could you give a link to the discussion of the "we" that came to this
conclusion?
Well, just read the threads. I'd prefer a "we" including you, but of
course I can only talk from the Commons RDF at GitHib folks. If do not
agree on that, please just put your arguments on the table, and we'll be
willing to discuss them.
In my understanding there is the possibility of using the commons sandbox.
And we have two proposal for rdf-commons one coming from clerezza and the
other from the community on github. I also see some interests on both sides
two align the proposals. The proposal in the sandbox svn is a first attempt
of such an alignment.
Of course both project could co-live. But then at some point the Commons
PMC would have to take a decision between both components' proposals:
the one coming out from Incubator and the one from sandbox.
I'm more of the opinion that collaboration is the key for achieving the
challenge of having a Commons RDF component. But of course you're free
of following your personal path.
I've no fundamental objection as having a new project with a narrower focus
than clerezza in the incubator rather than in the commons sandbox. The
crucial is that your incubation proposal mentions exclusively the github
code as starting point. At the clerezza project we have been following the
goal of a common RDF API since incubation as the first goal.
Because the main goal is the API itself, and that's we want to initially
contribute, having a clean codebase, both from the technical and IP
point of view.
Personally I've always seen Jena and Sesame as the real implementations.
But for sure the in-memory implementations is one of the points in the
agenda for the project. But step by step, please.
We have
addressed issues that are not yet fully addressed in the github proposal
(see the other discussion on blank nodes) and we have been working as an
apache community for more than 5 years.
Please, take aside the blank nodes discussion for now. Such single
technical detail is something would be solved later, as soon as the
scope of the project becomes clearer. Giving such level of importance
does not allow you to see the forest for the trees.
I'm happy to participate in this project but I would appreciate a more
neutral starting point.
I could say the same about neutrality... The current Commons RDF at
GitHub is the result of several discussions with the tool major Java
toolkits, while I can currently see at sandbox is just your personal
design out of the Clerezza adapters.
Then, I have to ask, should I include you in the proposal? See the
current draft at https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/CommonsRDF which it's
a draft we can discuss together.
Best,
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
