On 11 April 2015 at 22:11, Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hello Reto, >> >> 2015-03-30 14:45 GMT+02:00 Reto Gmür <r...@apache.org>: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > The clerezza commons RDF proposal that was in the sandbox and is now in >> the >> > clerezza-rdf-core repository has been changed to use >> > org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf. >> > >> > As you know if all goes well clerezza will be based in the result of the >> > incubating project. If however this project should unfortunately not lead >> > to something generic enough to be used for interfacing arbitrary data as >> > RDF and thus be usable for clerezza, then clerezza might reactivate its >> > commons-rdf proposal. It would then be up to commons to decide which >> > proposal to adopt and under which name. >> > >> >> We (the Apache Commons community) have already stated, that we don't have >> the necessary knowledge about RDF to make such a decision. I would prefer >> more people from clerezza joining this ML and build consensus with the >> incubating commons rdf community about how an implementation of the RDF >> specification should look like. >> > > It might be hard to reach an acceptable solution if the result of one year > on Github are taken as unmodifiable except when there is 100% agreement on > a change.
You were privy to all of the public discussions on GitHub, and many of the private discussions just before setting up the project publicly. Please do not imply that this was your first opportunity to bring up these issues, or that we had not responded at all to the issues you did bring up in the past. Apart from the structural constraints of having an entire interface driven API, and there being no clear reason why the interface names themselves should be changed to suit you, do you have other issues where getting ~100 percent agreement has failed and you would like some further discussion. > Even without having the commons community diving deep into RDF it might > become clear that one API is better suited for triple stores and their > requirement while the other is more suitable to exposing arbitrary data > source using the RDF model. So if the result is not something that can be > used in all usecases having two commons project relating to RDF but with an > distinct goal might also be an option. If you could articulate why the current interface based method makes it unsuitable for your use cases it would definitely help. In particular, some examples of where Clerezza could map a data source to RDF somewhow, but it would be impossible with commons-rdf-api, then we can start to discuss it further. Right now you have only implied that the difficulty exists without articulating it. Thanks, Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
