Hi my current contract doesnt support me to do this coding from scratch - though I can explore, for example, running ELDA deployed in a separate war against a marmotta back end and using LDR for the transactions. I can also explore whether Epimorphics might be interested in contributing ELDA implementation as such a module - i which case I would be willing to give some of my own time to plan, test and document.
There are other candidates - like Alan Robson's code base which may be a good starting point. I'm very happy to review any proposed candidates. I guess this is a matter of what the community thinks is most appropriate. Having others with an interest and greater knowledge of marmotta explore the ELDA implementation of LDA and do a sanity check on whether it would be acceptable from a style, licence perspective - and have a look at its dependencies and see if could co-exist. It would be problematic if it used a completely different set of libraries to do the same functions. My chief functionality concern over ELDA as a module would be support for blank nodes in building response graphs - but once available under ASF governance for development maybe thats something that the community could add easily enough. Cheers rob On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 at 19:00 Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > when you'll start coding, please point the fork here to get some help > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Rob Atkinson <r...@metalinkage.com.au> > wrote: > > > I've added a JIRA ticket for this at: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-630 > > > > In terms of interoperability - the standardisation of such APIs is a > > design-time consideration: do we allow users to map arbitrary URI > > templates to queries - or do we impose some well-known semantics? > > > > LinkedDataAPI has some standardised parameters: _view, _format and > > _language being the most relevant ones here. > > > > I'm in favour of a template-driven option, with default behaviour to > > support the LDA spec (or something that provides the same functionality > and > > is managed by W3C or IETF etc). It might be possible to pre-define > > templates that match existing options (LDA, graphity, pubby) and give > the > > user a choice. > > > > this would allow default behaviour to converge on standardised API > design, > > but allow flexibility in an uncertain world. > > > > Cheers > > Rob Atkinson > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 at 23:23 Bohms, H.M. (Michel) <michel.bo...@tno.nl> > > wrote: > > > >> Think such functionalities would be VERY handy, just one check. > >> > >> > >> > >> Would it in any way compromise interoperability? > >> > >> (ie less then pure sparql interface) > >> > >> > >> > >> Ie would it involve specific agreements on how to map services to > queries > >> etc. not covered by standards? > >> > >> > >> > >> Gr Michel; > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Dr. ir. H.M. (Michel) Bohms > >> Sr. Research Scientist > >> Structural Reliability > >> > >> T +31 (0)88 866 31 07 > >> M +31 (0)63 038 12 20 > >> E michel.bo...@tno.nl > >> > >> Location <http://www.tno.nl/locaties/DTM> > >> > >> > >> > >> <http://www.tno.nl/> > >> > >> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If > you > >> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you > >> are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts > no > >> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you > use > >> it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the > >> electronic transmission of messages. > >> > >> > >> > >> *From:* Sergio Fernández [mailto:wik...@apache.org] > >> *Sent:* 19 February 2016 09:04 > >> *To:* users@marmotta.apache.org > >> *Cc:* Rob Atkinson > >> > >> > >> *Subject:* Re: Support for RDF-shapes, Linked data API > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Rob and Robson, > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Rob Atkinson <r...@metalinkage.com.au> > >> wrote: > >> > >> So - no one else on the users list wishes to add anything? - 2 of 2 > >> people seem to think predetermined queries are a necessary function - > any > >> thoughts on whether this might end up as a Marmotta capability (module) > , > >> or at a minimum as a Use Case for Marmotta that should be articulated? > >> > >> > >> > >> I've been reading this thread very interested. Thanks for such good > >> discussion. Sorry if I didn't have the change to jump it; this is been a > >> very busy week. > >> > >> > >> > >> Should I take this to the dev list to see if any of the developer's have > >> thought about this - or are you all represented here? > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, you should! > >> > >> > >> > >> Depending on the scope, I'm not sure if this feature would require a new > >> module or just add it to the SPARQL module, that's something to discuss. > >> > >> > >> > >> Normally the workflow is: > >> > >> 1. Discuss it at dev@marmotta > >> > >> 2. Create an issue at Jira > >> > >> 3. Fork our repo at GitHub > >> > >> 4. Work! > >> > >> 5. PR > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Sergio Fernández > >> Partner Technology Manager > >> Redlink GmbH > >> m: +43 6602747925 > >> e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co > >> w: http://redlink.co > >> > > > > > -- > Sergio Fernández > Partner Technology Manager > Redlink GmbH > m: +43 6602747925 > e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co > w: http://redlink.co >
