Hi guys I also agree with the Antero's and Rafa's comments.
Regarding the list created by klim I would add: - PHP Stanbol client (I created it but it needs to be updated a bit to cover all the REST api's, right now only EntityHub and Enhancer) - Java client was developed by Zaizi (Rafa and I were involved on that) but it needs to be updated as well, so I would create a new version as well with the new dependency versions. Apart from that, I was working in trying to make Stanbol work inside Apache Karaf but I had problems and I didn't have time to continue working on that. But I would like to make it work because we could leverage many features provided by Karaf (like ESB, shell command line, remote ssh access to the console, etc) So, as agreed, we could extend this list and try to review it among all the members in this community. Regards 2016-05-20 12:35 GMT+02:00 klim klim <klimats...@gmail.com>: > Hi all, totally agree regarding the state of the documentation. > Also, I think it’s very well known current issue, thus I suggest to create > collaborative google-doc(or whatever you like) for the new version of > documentation, where community (e.g. myself) and developers can be involved > together. > > it was mentioned about google hangout session, let me just post some > high-level notes I made with a hope it will help to remember about some > topics we discussed: > > - no ontonet developers, pbbly Reto; > - two active branches: 0.12 (contenthub) and 1.0 (is not released yet). > jax-rs 2.0 is in plans, i > - mprovements in serialization in entityhub; no majors; now bug fixing > minor differencienies; > - stanbol xner (high-qulity for NER) ixa nerc pipes; > - claim that nlp models are apache license; > - release as a jar wo/ NLP, or a docker version; (currently from Salzburg > research server) > - outdated documentation? > - monitoring? > - dbpedia update? > - java client (zaizi)? > - coreference engine as a new feature (Christian) > - facts extraction as a new feature (Rafa) > - ontology?(synchronize true/false) - 6 sec; (automatic checker of > ontology changes) > - sparql endpoint Clerezza, rdf data must be registered with Clerezza (wsj > service registry); -> > - named graph into properties -> write a question on the mailing list > (Reto is not on the call); > - NO! sync bw/ knowledge base and solr index; Rupert decided against it, > because solr is a document store which requires reindex all subjects > involved (transactions…) -> workaround: it’s better to reindex in the loop > over subjects; triple store is on one jvm or another; > - you can register 2 solrs without interruption (register two solrs, > register fst; switch off the old one); > - ldp graphs indexing > - stanbol user interface is nothing!;) just configs; > - solr 5 version now? Solr was never updated > - should be include in Stanbol: api-changing clerezza (against the update > or ok for 1.0 version of [Clerezza changed the api completely]), most of > APIs of Stanbol use Clerezza; > - pbbly it will be started with 0.12 with Rafa and Fabian; signing in > Apache Server; > - also Python client exists > - folder in entity folder -> dbpedia update script and ppbly even > configuration; > - new sling launcher: log back support -> provide support for log servers > (Sling logging module) > - GC can free NLP modules - IT’S very IMPORTANT to provide enough MEMORY; > - event-extraction engine?; > - Client changes are better to move to configs in Stanbol > > > best, > Yauhen > > > > > > On May 20, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Antero Duarte <a.fduar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > Stanbol is great and I would hate to see it die. > > > > 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). > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > >
