>> PMC and community - your thoughts. > Not sure what does it mean, but it doesn't look like important.
I apologize, just misunderstood this. Well, If the PMC and community decide that this feature is good to be included as a Jena part, then, I think, the discussion can be moved to Jira. It is not an urgent question. Thank you for your time. On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 8:44 PM ss zuev <sss.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? > > >
