Hi, I will gather all the documentation I have, create some comments on what I don't really understand and essentially got to work on a trial-error basis and then I will send these to everyone. I will also outline in the same email some features I don't understand, some features that I think are useful but don't know how to configure/ not sure if they are actually fully implemented and a list of items that I came across that no longer apply/are deprecated.
Regards, Antero On Fri, 20 May 2016 at 11:39 Rafa Haro <rh...@apache.org> wrote: > HI Antero, > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:23 PM Antero Duarte <a.fduar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > Stanbol is great and I would hate to see it die. > > > > Couldn't be more agree! > > > > > About the lack of feedback from users/developers, I can only say that it > > took quite a while for me to be able to reply to someone on this mailing > > list because the learning curve is so steep. I bet a lot of people still > > read and are interested in stanbol updates, but they just don't have the > > technical know-how to be involved. I include myself in this group, I have > > answered a couple of questions, but only really basic ones, as I fear my > > knowledge of the platform as a whole doesn't allow me to answer more > > complicated questions. > > > > I think one step that definitely needs to be taken is improving/updating > > the existing documentation. I know for a fact that one thing that really > > put me off when I first started using stanbol was the that there was > > documentation that was unclear, examples that were unable to be > reproduced > > for several reasons, and outdated documents that referenced components > that > > no longer existed in the latest stable release of stanbol (I'm not even > > talking about the latest build from trunk). > > > > That's true again imho. Also Development documentation, not only final user > one is needed. And probably some work on making the APIs more > comprehensible. > > > > > > I have a couple of documents that I have written over time that made it > > easier for me to understand how stanbol works and I could share these but > > they would need to be reviewed by someone who understands stanbol a lot > > better than me. > > > > Please share, for sure we can all take benefit from it and improve the > documentation > > > > > > I understand that you have busy lives and as developers, you'd rather use > > the little time you have to code than to write documentation, but if we > can > > make stanbol more approachable to newcomers, I believe the developer pool > > would increase greatly and we could make Stanbol great again. > > > > +1. It would be great to have also concrete examples about what features, > components and son on are not clear enough or just deprecated in the > current live documentation so we can start by those > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > Best Regards, > > Antero Duarte > > > > On Fri, 20 May 2016 at 10:26 Rafa Haro <rh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Soroka, > > > > > > First of all, reading this kind of emails is, in my opinion, a cause of > > > happiness as a new attempt to somehow reactivate the project. I share > the > > > same feeling about Apache Stanbol since sometime ago. More than one > month > > > ago, there was a Google Hangout meeting joined by some committers and > > also > > > users. We tried to sketch an immediate roadmap and planned to release > > > version 1.0 in the following weeks after that meeting. We sent an email > > to > > > the list with the meeting minutes, but after that there was a lot of > > > silence again. > > > > > > Probably the main problem right now is probably the lack of quality > time > > to > > > dedicate to the project for the current active committers. I can only > > speak > > > for myself: in my particular case, in the last year I have used Stanbol > > for > > > a couple of projects, we developed a couple of custom engines that we > can > > > prepare for contribution, but we never found the proper time to do > this, > > > among other things because we didn't have clear if those engines could > be > > > useful for the community. And that is probably another symptom, we have > > > been progressively losing feedback from users, developers....community: > > > there are less and less messages in the mailing list every month. This > > > scenario is probably not too much motivating for aiming contributions > and > > > finding new committers. There are probably more reasons, like Stanbol > is > > > not technically very friendly to be approached. > > > > > > Of course I'm not saying this situation is someone fault. I'm not very > > sure > > > about the best recipe for improving the situation either. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:49 PM A. Soroka <aj...@virginia.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Stanbol folks! > > > > > > > > I'm writing to you on behalf of the community of Fedora Commons ( > > > > http://fedora-commons.org). Fedora is an information architecture > with > > > > open source reference implementation that has come into wide use over > > the > > > > last fifteen years in the "cultural heritage" world of libraries, > > > archives, > > > > museums, etc. For many years, we've been intensely concerned with the > > > ideas > > > > that go under the loose label of "the Semantic Web". In fact, the > > latest > > > > edition of Fedora is an Linked Data Platform implementation, amongst > > > other > > > > things. > > > > > > > > Several institutions using Fedora are also using Stanbol for various > > > tasks > > > > (supporting OpenRefine, metadata entity management, NER, etc.), and > > some > > > > discussion has occurred about its state and future potential. It's > not > > > > totally clear to us what kind of development community and commitment > > > > therefrom currently exists. There has been discussion about a 1.0 > > release > > > > of Stanbol, but there doesn't seem to be much other activity in the > > > > codebase, with very few of the listed committers making commits. > > > > > > > > We were wondering if it is possible to get a better sense of the > > > > near-mid-term future of the project. Is there a road map beyond the > 1.0 > > > > release? Is Stanbol seeking new developers? What kinds of resources > are > > > > missing to put more vitality back into Stanbol? It's an excellent > > project > > > > filled with great ideas and we'd like to see it move forward. > > > > > > > > We'd be happy to get together for a telephone call / Google Hangout / > > > > other meeting, if that seems useful! > > > > > > > > --- > > > > A. Soroka > > > > The University of Virginia Library > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
