Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On 19 April 2018 at 00:13, Christopher wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > >> Le jeudi 19 avril 2018, 00:05:01 CEST Christopher a écrit : >> [...] >> > > > Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if >> they >> > > > aren't utilized for any other purpose. >> > > >> > > As I keep saying, the DOAPs *ARE* used to build the p.a.o pages. >> > >> > Okay, okay. Sorry, Sebb. You're right. It does seem to still be in use >> for >> > building some portions of p.a.o. I just didn't see any evidence of that, >> > and could not find any documentation on *how* it is used to build them. >> perhaps I should just add that PMC RDF data files are used to build >> Committees >> pages: https://projects.apache.org/committees.html (Committee is a >> synonym >> here for PMC) >> and projects DOAP files are used to build Projects pages: >> https://projects.apache.org/projects.html >> >> > Who maintains the "PMC RDF data files" which are "used to build Committees > pages", and where are those stored? https://projects.apache.org/about.html => 2. > >> it's not so obvious since the difference between Committe and Project is >> not >> so obvious >> >> I'm happy to have some feedback on the documentation written, that I'm not >> sure many people read: I'll be happy to improve it given on the feedback >> >> > >> > You are right. I was mistaken. I had not spent enough time on the site to >> > understand how it is used, and it was not obvious to me that any >> > functionality was missing when the DOAP file was missing. Sorry for the >> > misunderstanding on my part. >> > >> > After some more time spent on the site, I was able to see some portions >> > which don't work if the DOAP is missing. Specifically, I can now see that >> > it is used for grouping projects by language, by category, and listing >> > releases (which is the information I was asking for, and which would be >> > useful to add to [2], along with any other way it is used that I did not >> > observe.) >> > >> > I do think it is preferred that p.a.o get release information from >> > reporter.a.o instead... it would make maintaining DOAP simpler, and >> reduce >> > the burden on developers to maintain a duplicate dataset. >> I confess that Branko's remark about "Semantic Web aficionados appear to >> have >> vanished into the space between microservices" seems relevant... >> the idea behind using some universal format, and not just Apache internal >> tooling, was appealing: everything that is done magically by internal >> tooling >> has drawbacks. >> But for sure, the release part is the most hard to manually maintain part. >> >> > The problem with this universal format is the pain to maintain. If > "(whimsy|reporter|projects)[.]apache[.]org", or another tool provided a > good UI to generate the universal format... I don't think maintenance would > be an issue. Over the last few years, I keep encountering what I think is > probably some sort of universal truth: the problems with nearly any process > or workflow is lack of adequate tooling. > > >> > Thank you for your persistence in educating me. I did eventually get >> there. >> > Sorry if my confusion and ignorance caused any unnecessary strife. :) >> It's good to have feedback and interest, even if the interest contains >> criticism: it's constructive feedback >> >> > Indeed. Which is why I only apologize for the strife which is > "unnecessary". :) > > >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le jeudi 19 avril 2018, 00:05:01 CEST Christopher a écrit : > [...] > > > > Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if > they > > > > aren't utilized for any other purpose. > > > > > > As I keep saying, the DOAPs *ARE* used to build the p.a.o pages. > > > > Okay, okay. Sorry, Sebb. You're right. It does seem to still be in use > for > > building some portions of p.a.o. I just didn't see any evidence of that, > > and could not find any documentation on *how* it is used to build them. > perhaps I should just add that PMC RDF data files are used to build > Committees > pages: https://projects.apache.org/committees.html (Committee is a > synonym > here for PMC) > and projects DOAP files are used to build Projects pages: > https://projects.apache.org/projects.html > > Who maintains the "PMC RDF data files" which are "used to build Committees pages", and where are those stored? > it's not so obvious since the difference between Committe and Project is > not > so obvious > > I'm happy to have some feedback on the documentation written, that I'm not > sure many people read: I'll be happy to improve it given on the feedback > > > > > You are right. I was mistaken. I had not spent enough time on the site to > > understand how it is used, and it was not obvious to me that any > > functionality was missing when the DOAP file was missing. Sorry for the > > misunderstanding on my part. > > > > After some more time spent on the site, I was able to see some portions > > which don't work if the DOAP is missing. Specifically, I can now see that > > it is used for grouping projects by language, by category, and listing > > releases (which is the information I was asking for, and which would be > > useful to add to [2], along with any other way it is used that I did not > > observe.) > > > > I do think it is preferred that p.a.o get release information from > > reporter.a.o instead... it would make maintaining DOAP simpler, and > reduce > > the burden on developers to maintain a duplicate dataset. > I confess that Branko's remark about "Semantic Web aficionados appear to > have > vanished into the space between microservices" seems relevant... > the idea behind using some universal format, and not just Apache internal > tooling, was appealing: everything that is done magically by internal > tooling > has drawbacks. > But for sure, the release part is the most hard to manually maintain part. > > The problem with this universal format is the pain to maintain. If "(whimsy|reporter|projects)[.]apache[.]org", or another tool provided a good UI to generate the universal format... I don't think maintenance would be an issue. Over the last few years, I keep encountering what I think is probably some sort of universal truth: the problems with nearly any process or workflow is lack of adequate tooling. > > Thank you for your persistence in educating me. I did eventually get > there. > > Sorry if my confusion and ignorance caused any unnecessary strife. :) > It's good to have feedback and interest, even if the interest contains > criticism: it's constructive feedback > > Indeed. Which is why I only apologize for the strife which is "unnecessary". :) > Regards, > > Hervé > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
Le jeudi 19 avril 2018, 00:05:01 CEST Christopher a écrit : [...] > > > Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they > > > aren't utilized for any other purpose. > > > > As I keep saying, the DOAPs *ARE* used to build the p.a.o pages. > > Okay, okay. Sorry, Sebb. You're right. It does seem to still be in use for > building some portions of p.a.o. I just didn't see any evidence of that, > and could not find any documentation on *how* it is used to build them. perhaps I should just add that PMC RDF data files are used to build Committees pages: https://projects.apache.org/committees.html (Committee is a synonym here for PMC) and projects DOAP files are used to build Projects pages: https://projects.apache.org/projects.html it's not so obvious since the difference between Committe and Project is not so obvious I'm happy to have some feedback on the documentation written, that I'm not sure many people read: I'll be happy to improve it given on the feedback > > You are right. I was mistaken. I had not spent enough time on the site to > understand how it is used, and it was not obvious to me that any > functionality was missing when the DOAP file was missing. Sorry for the > misunderstanding on my part. > > After some more time spent on the site, I was able to see some portions > which don't work if the DOAP is missing. Specifically, I can now see that > it is used for grouping projects by language, by category, and listing > releases (which is the information I was asking for, and which would be > useful to add to [2], along with any other way it is used that I did not > observe.) > > I do think it is preferred that p.a.o get release information from > reporter.a.o instead... it would make maintaining DOAP simpler, and reduce > the burden on developers to maintain a duplicate dataset. I confess that Branko's remark about "Semantic Web aficionados appear to have vanished into the space between microservices" seems relevant... the idea behind using some universal format, and not just Apache internal tooling, was appealing: everything that is done magically by internal tooling has drawbacks. But for sure, the release part is the most hard to manually maintain part. > Thank you for your persistence in educating me. I did eventually get there. > Sorry if my confusion and ignorance caused any unnecessary strife. :) It's good to have feedback and interest, even if the interest contains criticism: it's constructive feedback Regards, Hervé - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:12 PM sebb wrote:
> On 17 April 2018 at 22:00, Christopher wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
> >> >> > I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are
> not
> >> >> > well-maintained.
> >> >>
> >> >> True
> >> >>
> >> >> > As I understand it, these were once used to populate
> >> projects.apache.org
> >> >> [1]
> >> >> > But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me
> if
> >> I'm
> >> >> > wrong)
> >> >>
> >> >> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
> >> >> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still
> >> used,
> >> > but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or
> outdated.
> >> >
> >> > Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which
> >> have
> >> > them.
> >>
> >> I think you are confusing projects with PMCs.
> >>
> >>
> > No. I definitely mean "projects", as in TLP ("Top Level Project"), "
> > projects.apache.org", and DOAP ("description of a project").
> >
> > The *project* is missing the DOAP, because their *PMC* did not create
> one.
> > Yet, nothing seems to be broken.
>
> It seems not to be broken because the website creates minimal project
> pages for each PMC.
> This assumes that the project name is the same as the name of the PMC.
> Perhaps it should not do that.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly
> >> false,
> >> >> > at the very least.
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
> >> > documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of
> them.
> >> > The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this
> documentation.
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >
> > [2] is not a substitute for [1], because it does not have any of the
> > content contained in [1].
> >
> >
> >> Where should it be documented?
> >>
> >>
> > I don't know... you were the one who pointed to that page, not me. I
> never
> > said [2] should be a substitute for [1]. I'm just trying to figure out if
> > [1] or [2] (or any other DOAP documentation) is relevant *AT ALL*. [1]
> > describes the original purpose, etc., but it does not seem relevant
> > anymore, and no other page describes its current relevance.
>
> I have already written that the DOAPs are used to flesh out the Project
> pages.
>
> >
> >> > So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
> >> > purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
> >>
> >> [2]
> >>
> >>
> > No. [2] doesn't have any of that content. It merely mentions that they
> > exist and that the PMC is responsible for them.
>
> It also implies that the DOAPs are used to build the p.a.o pages.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for
> DOAP
> >> does
> >> >> > not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it
> >> exists
> >> >> > for a project.
> >> >>
> >> >> Projects.a.o validates them.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is
> >> useless,
> >> > so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
> >>
> >> projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2]
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they
> > aren't utilized for any other purpose.
>
> As I keep saying, the DOAPs *ARE* used to build the p.a.o pages.
>
>
Okay, okay. Sorry, Sebb. You're right. It does seem to still be in use for
building some portions of p.a.o. I just didn't see any evidence of that,
and could not find any documentation on *how* it is used to build them.
You are right. I was mistaken. I had not spent enough time on the site to
understand how it is used, and it was not obvious to me that any
functionality was missing when the DOAP file was missing. Sorry for the
misunderstanding on my part.
After some more time spent on the site, I was able to see some portions
which don't work if the DOAP is missing. Specifically, I can now see that
it is used for grouping projects by language, by category, and listing
releases (which is the information I was asking for, and which would be
useful to add to [2], along with any other way it is used that I did not
observe.)
I do think it is preferred that p.a.o get release information from
reporter.a.o instead... it would make maintaining DOAP simpler, and reduce
the burden on developers to maintain a duplicate dataset.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > My questions are:
> >> >> > Is a DOAP file required?
> >> >> > If so, by what policy
> >> >>
> >> >> No idea
> >> >>
> >> >> > and for what pu
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On 17 April 2018 at 22:00, Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM sebb wrote:
>
>> On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
>> >> > I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
>> >> > well-maintained.
>> >>
>> >> True
>> >>
>> >> > As I understand it, these were once used to populate
>> projects.apache.org
>> >> [1]
>> >> > But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if
>> I'm
>> >> > wrong)
>> >>
>> >> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
>> >> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> > It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still
>> used,
>> > but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated.
>> >
>> > Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which
>> have
>> > them.
>>
>> I think you are confusing projects with PMCs.
>>
>>
> No. I definitely mean "projects", as in TLP ("Top Level Project"), "
> projects.apache.org", and DOAP ("description of a project").
>
> The *project* is missing the DOAP, because their *PMC* did not create one.
> Yet, nothing seems to be broken.
It seems not to be broken because the website creates minimal project
pages for each PMC.
This assumes that the project name is the same as the name of the PMC.
Perhaps it should not do that.
>
>> >
>> >> > The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly
>> false,
>> >> > at the very least.
>> >>
>> >> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
>> > documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them.
>> > The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> [2] is not a substitute for [1], because it does not have any of the
> content contained in [1].
>
>
>> Where should it be documented?
>>
>>
> I don't know... you were the one who pointed to that page, not me. I never
> said [2] should be a substitute for [1]. I'm just trying to figure out if
> [1] or [2] (or any other DOAP documentation) is relevant *AT ALL*. [1]
> describes the original purpose, etc., but it does not seem relevant
> anymore, and no other page describes its current relevance.
I have already written that the DOAPs are used to flesh out the Project pages.
>
>> > So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
>> > purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
>>
>> [2]
>>
>>
> No. [2] doesn't have any of that content. It merely mentions that they
> exist and that the PMC is responsible for them.
It also implies that the DOAPs are used to build the p.a.o pages.
>
>> >
>> >> > And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP
>> does
>> >> > not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it
>> exists
>> >> > for a project.
>> >>
>> >> Projects.a.o validates them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is
>> useless,
>> > so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
>>
>> projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2]
>>
>>
> Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they
> aren't utilized for any other purpose.
As I keep saying, the DOAPs *ARE* used to build the p.a.o pages.
>
>> >
>> >> > My questions are:
>> >> > Is a DOAP file required?
>> >> > If so, by what policy
>> >>
>> >> No idea
>> >>
>> >> > and for what purpose?
>> >>
>> >> See [2]
>> >>
>> >>
>> > That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they
>> exist
>> > and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page
>> > which describes itself as containing "historical information", which
>> > further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently
>> > documented use).
>>
>> [2] says:
>>
>> How The Code Works
>> ... from various data sources ...
>> 3. Project DOAP files listed in
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/projects.apache.org/data/projects.xml
>>
>>
> Yeah, I know what it says. But it's not true. It doesn't say how it is
> used, it doesn't say what purpose it serves currently, and if a project
> doesn't have one, nothing seems to be broken.
See above.
> So, my questions still stand:
>
> Are they still required?
They are required to provide data for the p.a.o projects pages.
> If so, by what policy and for what purpose? (not the original purpose,
> documented at [1]... but the *current* purpose, which in spite of being
> mentioned on [2], does not actually appear to exist).
See above.
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Christopher
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> To
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On 17.04.2018 23:00, Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM sebb wrote:
>
>> On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb wrote:
>>>
On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
> I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
> well-maintained.
True
> As I understand it, these were once used to populate
>> projects.apache.org
[1]
> But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if
>> I'm
> wrong)
They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
[2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
>>> It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still
>> used,
>>> but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated.
>>>
>>> Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which
>> have
>>> them.
>> I think you are confusing projects with PMCs.
>>
>>
> No. I definitely mean "projects", as in TLP ("Top Level Project"), "
> projects.apache.org", and DOAP ("description of a project").
>
> The *project* is missing the DOAP, because their *PMC* did not create one.
> Yet, nothing seems to be broken.
>
>
> The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly
>> false,
> at the very least.
[1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
>>> As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
>>> documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them.
>>> The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation.
>> Why not?
>>
> [2] is not a substitute for [1], because it does not have any of the
> content contained in [1].
>
>
>> Where should it be documented?
>>
>>
> I don't know... you were the one who pointed to that page, not me. I never
> said [2] should be a substitute for [1]. I'm just trying to figure out if
> [1] or [2] (or any other DOAP documentation) is relevant *AT ALL*. [1]
> describes the original purpose, etc., but it does not seem relevant
> anymore, and no other page describes its current relevance.
>
>
>>> So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
>>> purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
>> [2]
>>
>>
> No. [2] doesn't have any of that content. It merely mentions that they
> exist and that the PMC is responsible for them.
>
>
> And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP
>> does
> not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it
>> exists
> for a project.
Projects.a.o validates them.
>>> Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is
>> useless,
>>> so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
>> projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2]
>>
>>
> Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they
> aren't utilized for any other purpose.
>
>
> My questions are:
> Is a DOAP file required?
> If so, by what policy
No idea
> and for what purpose?
See [2]
>>> That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they
>> exist
>>> and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page
>>> which describes itself as containing "historical information", which
>>> further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently
>>> documented use).
>> [2] says:
>>
>> How The Code Works
>> ... from various data sources ...
>> 3. Project DOAP files listed in
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/projects.apache.org/data/projects.xml
>>
>>
> Yeah, I know what it says. But it's not true. It doesn't say how it is
> used, it doesn't say what purpose it serves currently, and if a project
> doesn't have one, nothing seems to be broken.
>
> So, my questions still stand:
>
> Are they still required?
> If so, by what policy and for what purpose? (not the original purpose,
> documented at [1]... but the *current* purpose, which in spite of being
> mentioned on [2], does not actually appear to exist).
Given that RDF is no longer the buzzword it was 10 years ago, and
Semantic Web aficionados appear to have vanished into the space between
microservices, I'd say that:
(a) DOAP files should not be required (and never should have been in
the first place), and,
(b) the sooner they're all gone, the better.
-- Brane
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM sebb wrote:
> On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
> >> > I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
> >> > well-maintained.
> >>
> >> True
> >>
> >> > As I understand it, these were once used to populate
> projects.apache.org
> >> [1]
> >> > But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if
> I'm
> >> > wrong)
> >>
> >> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
> >> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
> >>
> >>
> > It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still
> used,
> > but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated.
> >
> > Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which
> have
> > them.
>
> I think you are confusing projects with PMCs.
>
>
No. I definitely mean "projects", as in TLP ("Top Level Project"), "
projects.apache.org", and DOAP ("description of a project").
The *project* is missing the DOAP, because their *PMC* did not create one.
Yet, nothing seems to be broken.
> >
> >> > The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly
> false,
> >> > at the very least.
> >>
> >> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
> >>
> >>
> > As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
> > documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them.
> > The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation.
>
> Why not?
>
[2] is not a substitute for [1], because it does not have any of the
content contained in [1].
> Where should it be documented?
>
>
I don't know... you were the one who pointed to that page, not me. I never
said [2] should be a substitute for [1]. I'm just trying to figure out if
[1] or [2] (or any other DOAP documentation) is relevant *AT ALL*. [1]
describes the original purpose, etc., but it does not seem relevant
anymore, and no other page describes its current relevance.
> > So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
> > purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
>
> [2]
>
>
No. [2] doesn't have any of that content. It merely mentions that they
exist and that the PMC is responsible for them.
> >
> >> > And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP
> does
> >> > not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it
> exists
> >> > for a project.
> >>
> >> Projects.a.o validates them.
> >>
> >>
> > Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is
> useless,
> > so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
>
> projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2]
>
>
Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they
aren't utilized for any other purpose.
> >
> >> > My questions are:
> >> > Is a DOAP file required?
> >> > If so, by what policy
> >>
> >> No idea
> >>
> >> > and for what purpose?
> >>
> >> See [2]
> >>
> >>
> > That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they
> exist
> > and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page
> > which describes itself as containing "historical information", which
> > further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently
> > documented use).
>
> [2] says:
>
> How The Code Works
> ... from various data sources ...
> 3. Project DOAP files listed in
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/projects.apache.org/data/projects.xml
>
>
Yeah, I know what it says. But it's not true. It doesn't say how it is
used, it doesn't say what purpose it serves currently, and if a project
doesn't have one, nothing seems to be broken.
So, my questions still stand:
Are they still required?
If so, by what policy and for what purpose? (not the original purpose,
documented at [1]... but the *current* purpose, which in spite of being
mentioned on [2], does not actually appear to exist).
> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Christopher
> >> >
> >> > [1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb wrote:
>
>> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
>> > I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
>> > well-maintained.
>>
>> True
>>
>> > As I understand it, these were once used to populate projects.apache.org
>> [1]
>> > But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if I'm
>> > wrong)
>>
>> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
>> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
>>
>>
> It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still used,
> but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated.
>
> Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which have
> them.
I think you are confusing projects with PMCs.
>
>> > The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly false,
>> > at the very least.
>>
>> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
>>
>>
> As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
> documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them.
> The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation.
Why not?
Where should it be documented?
> So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
> purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
[2]
>
>> > And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP does
>> > not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it exists
>> > for a project.
>>
>> Projects.a.o validates them.
>>
>>
> Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is useless,
> so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2]
>
>> > My questions are:
>> > Is a DOAP file required?
>> > If so, by what policy
>>
>> No idea
>>
>> > and for what purpose?
>>
>> See [2]
>>
>>
> That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they exist
> and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page
> which describes itself as containing "historical information", which
> further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently
> documented use).
[2] says:
How The Code Works
... from various data sources ...
3. Project DOAP files listed in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/projects.apache.org/data/projects.xml
>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Christopher
>> >
>> > [1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>>
>>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb wrote:
> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
> > I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
> > well-maintained.
>
> True
>
> > As I understand it, these were once used to populate projects.apache.org
> [1]
> > But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if I'm
> > wrong)
>
> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
>
>
It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still used,
but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated.
Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which have
them.
> > The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly false,
> > at the very least.
>
> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
>
>
As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them.
The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation.
So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
> > And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP does
> > not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it exists
> > for a project.
>
> Projects.a.o validates them.
>
>
Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is useless,
so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
> > My questions are:
> > Is a DOAP file required?
> > If so, by what policy
>
> No idea
>
> > and for what purpose?
>
> See [2]
>
>
That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they exist
and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page
which describes itself as containing "historical information", which
further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently
documented use).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > [1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: Is DOAP still a thing?
On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher wrote:
> I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
> well-maintained.
True
> As I understand it, these were once used to populate projects.apache.org[1]
> But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if I'm
> wrong)
They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
[2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
> The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly false,
> at the very least.
[1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
> And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP does
> not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it exists
> for a project.
Projects.a.o validates them.
> My questions are:
> Is a DOAP file required?
> If so, by what policy
No idea
> and for what purpose?
See [2]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christopher
>
> [1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Is DOAP still a thing?
I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
well-maintained.
As I understand it, these were once used to populate projects.apache.org[1]
But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if I'm
wrong)
The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly false,
at the very least.
And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP does
not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it exists
for a project.
My questions are:
Is a DOAP file required?
If so, by what policy and for what purpose?
Thanks,
Christopher
[1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
