OK, I see all those points... Probably the initial goal of Commons RDF was to ambitious; specially taking into account it always was a side-project for all of us.
But I do see the future of the project as a more compact component in Apache Commons. There with time we may be able to reach smaller goals that help other Apache project (e.g. Marmotta or Any23). Should we start to define more concretely that path? BTW, in parallel we have to prepare our June report, I'll prepare a draft. On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > I've not gotten into the code as I am not a SME but as long as the _goal_ > of the component are clearly defined, I think other Commons and Apache > developers can come in and out as they see fit. > > So long as there is movement and discussions on where to go next, I would > support that. > > Gary > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Benedikt Ritter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello Sergio, > > > > Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr., 27. Mai 2016 um > > 11:44 Uhr: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > once we got over the 0.2.0-incubating milestone, I think it's time to > > > meditate what's the future of Commons RDF... > > > > > > FMPOV it's clear that we're far away from where we wanted to be when we > > > started this journey of incubation. Many reasons to explain why: the > > > incubation overhead, the discussions, the different > personal/professional > > > priorities, key people withdraws, etc. Which in the end is all normal. > > > > > > > Let me first express some of my observations and feelings regarding the > > development of Commons RDF. > > > > I've always only been kind of a spectator in this project. I see Apache > > Commons as a platform for other projects to come together and share code. > > This is why I wanted Commons RDF to become part of Apache Commons from > the > > beginning. However I always had the problem that RDF felt like a very > > special topic to me. At my company I built enterprise applications and I > > never had a use case for Commons RDF. I think this was a problem from the > > very beginning. People just don't know RDF and that's why this project > > never built a wider community. > > > > I have thought a lot whether it was a good move to force Commons RDF to > go > > through the incubator. We had a hand full of Apache people on board as > well > > as people who know other open communities. The incubator feels like a too > > heavy burden for a small project that has the Apache way and IP already > > figured out. This is why we accepted Commons Crypto directly into Commons > > instead of forcing them to go through the incubator. My feeling is that > > Commons Crypto benefited from the adoption by Apache Commons. So who > knows, > > maybe Commons RDF would have a much bigger community by now if it had not > > to go through the incubator. > > > > Some words about the (small) community: I realized that there where heavy > > discrepancies among community members, but I could not take party in the > > arguments because I simply don't know RDF. It's sad that we could not > find > > a common ground but I think this has something to do with fundamentally > > different opinions about how RDF should be modeled in Java. It's probably > > not possible to reach consensus in such a situation. It's a pity that > > several people left in the end. > > > > > > > > > > But that's part of the past, we have to look to the present. And if I > > look > > > to our team I can only count two active contributors Stian and myself), > > > which is clearly not enough to help the major toolkits (Apache Jena and > > > Eclipse RDF4J) to converge towards a commons API; we clearly lost the > > > timing on that (Jena 3.x is out there for quite a while and RDF4J's > first > > > milestones came out last week). > > > > > > So I'd like to make a straight question to all our community: what do > we > > > want to do with the project? > > > > > > If I'm honest, currently I'm more about retiring the podling than > > continue, > > > but you may have a different point of view... and I'd live to hear it. > > > > > > > I'm very happy to see that you (= the Commons RDF) community have > > integrated into the Apache Commons community. You take part in > discussions > > about general matters of Apache Commons. This is important, because > Apache > > Commons is not a community of subcommunities, but a community maintaining > > several independent components. I think we can propose to graduate > Commons > > RDF to Apache Commons for the following reasons: > > > > - Commons RDF had 2 successful releases. (Imaging and Functor, while > > already proper components never had a release) > > - several people are interested in the code > > - the members of the Commons RDF community have started to feel part of > > Apache Commons > > - Commons RDF still is a project that can be used by other Apache > projects. > > > > So if you guys want to take this to the next level, you'll have my > support. > > > > Benedikt > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sergio Fernández > > > Partner Technology Manager > > > Redlink GmbH > > > m: +43 6602747925 > > > e: [email protected] > > > w: http://redlink.co > > > > > > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > -- > <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory> > <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory> > Sergio Fernández > Partner Technology Manager > Redlink GmbH > m: +43 6602747925 > e: <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>[email protected] > w: http://redlink.co >
