> PMC and community - your thoughts. Not sure what does it mean, but it doesn't look like important.
The new home for ONT-API is the owlcs group, it is discussed [here](https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi/issues/889). The relationship between ONT-API and OWL-API is described in the README.md of ONT-API. The question was not about moving the whole project, but only part of it (OntGraphModel), sorry if I didn’t put it clearly enough. It is the package 'com.github.owlcs.ontapi.jena' (the former 'ru.avicomp.ontapi.jena') and the main class is 'OntGraphModel'. All the rest parts of API are definitely not suitable to be moved into Jena. But this one - is a classic Jena Model, small enough, and I thought it would be quite convenient for people who are used to the 'OntModel'. Although it is not 'InfModel', it has rich functionality to work with all OWL2 things, which is what many people want. In the page https://jena.apache.org/documentation/ontology/ there are words about OWL1.1: "We will be addressing this in future versions Jena." so I thought OntGraphModel could be a good start to such support. "Copyright (c), The University of Manchester, owl.cs group." is a header, that I set a few days ago. Instead of old one, since now the project home is owlcs. I can't see any problem here, it seemed to me a pretty good header. And, of course, I didn't mean the moving everything as it is: this was a question, while moving the header would be changed to apache license, and classes/packages would be renamed. Sorry if this was unclear. > the provenance is unclear. Well, the whole provenance is definitely in the git history, no any other places exist. Maybe it is unclear due to the moving - this operation is not directly supported by the git itself, although some tools can glue the commit history after moving. > So an important question is whether, from the wider Jena community, there are > people sufficiently interested to take this forward. Well, I can support this model, but in this case, I tend to think it is better to leave the 'OntGraphModel' as a part of ONT-API (i.e. within its new home - owlcs). So, the question, I think, can be closed. Thank you for your time. On 2019/10/18 10:29:03, ss zuev <sss.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, everyone. > This is the question. > > There is a project [ONT-API](https://github.com/avicomp/ont-api), which is > a jena-based OWL-API implementation. > It includes Ontology RDF Model, > [ru.avicomp.ontapi.jena.model.OntGraphModel]( > https://github.com/avicomp/ont-api/blob/master/src/main/java/ru/avicomp/ontapi/jena/model/OntGraphModel.java), > > that is an analogue of org.apache.jena.ontology.OntModel but for OWL2 > semantic. > > Currently I can't continue with domain avicomp, and, therefore,I'd like to > move somewhere the whole project or some its part. > I think the OntGraphModel as a feature could be very convenient for Jena > users. > > Few additional notes: > ONT-API has direct tests for only this model (package > ru.avicomp.ontapi.tests.jena), > and total number of testcases (which might be considered as indirect tests) > is about 5500 (many of them were taken from OWL-API). > It also has benchmarks and memmarks (but not for `OntGraphModel`). > Also it has javadocs and usages: (my) ONT-D2RQ, ONT-MAP projects, and > protege-like system (yet not in github), many other users also use ONT-API > somehow. > > Obviously, the possible moving would mean total refactoring : changing > namespaces and class names, fix docs, maybe moving methods, etc. > > What do you think about this? >
