On 10/11/10 23:28, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
- The core API for (mutable) graphs in:
http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/mvn-site/org.apache.clerezza.rdf.core/apidocs/index.html
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andy Seaborne
andy.seabo...@epimorphics.com wrote:
...Advice on an appropriate discussion forum welcome - while we're in a state
of exploring the relationships of projects, I'm guessing that here is the
only common place there is...
Best might be to move
- The core API for (mutable) graphs in:
http://incubator.apache.org/clerezza/mvn-site/org.apache.clerezza.rdf.core/apidocs/index.html
Olivier Grisel wrote:
On 8 November 2010 15:54, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm following up on discussions here regarding relationships between
the incubating Clerezza podling and incoming Stanbol and Jena podlings
(see proposals at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator).
Hi Jeremy
One of Clerezza aims was to use an RDF api that is maximally close to RDF
abstract syntax and semantics, on this RDF core api we have different
façades and utilities as well as a frontend adapter implementing the jena
API. Related standards like SPARQL and the various serialization
I haven't understood yet the relationship of Stanbol and Clerezza to be
able to say anything about how a commons area between those two systems
might work. In terms of direct dependencies, does Stanbol just directly
depend on Clerezza and only indirectly on Sesame, Jena rdf2go and the
OWLAPI
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Andy Seaborne
andy.seabo...@epimorphics.com wrote:
Jeremy identified the IRI library as a potential contribution to a commons
area. It is free-standing, and does not use or call any Jena RDF code - it
depends only on ICU4J (and JUnit + Jflex in the build).
On 09/11/10 16:22, Florent Guillaume wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Andy Seaborne
andy.seabo...@epimorphics.com wrote:
Jeremy identified the IRI library as a potential contribution to a commons
area. It is free-standing, and does not use or call any Jena RDF code - it
depends only
On 11/9/2010 8:22 AM, Florent Guillaume wrote:
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Andy Seaborne
andy.seabo...@epimorphics.com wrote:
Jeremy identified the IRI library as a potential contribution to a commons
area. It is free-standing, and does not use or call any Jena RDF code - it
depends only
I could be accused of having gone overboard ... each of the slightly
different specs as an explicit representation in the code ...
Having changed job and looking at this from a different perspective I am
less convinced by the pickiness.
There is a largely unrealized goal in the IRI code to link
On 09/11/10 16:59, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
I could be accused of having gone overboard ...
yes ... :-)
Having changed job and looking at this from a different perspective I am
less convinced by the pickiness.
At least leave the picky mode there, please. It's been very helpful in
working
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
...I'm following up on discussions here regarding relationships between
the incubating Clerezza podling and incoming Stanbol and Jena podlings...
Thanks everybody for your replies, I think they show that the
2010/11/8 Reto Bachmann-Gmuer reto.bachm...@trialox.org
I described this parts of Clerezza because they seem to be quite close to
what you suggest for commons. As it is hard to share utilities without
having shared APIs for the core stuff our code deals with I think some
efforts in this area
Hi,
I'm following up on discussions here regarding relationships between
the incubating Clerezza podling and incoming Stanbol and Jena podlings
(see proposals at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator).
Do people agree with the following structure?
1. Clerezza, Stanbol and Jena are independent
As champion for Jena I agree in principle. I can't speak for the Jena team if
course, but representatives are tracking this list and have started discussing
in their project list.
I will be making the formal Jena proposal here very soon (just as soon as I'm
not limited to the iPhone) - its in
Wow! Jena is proposing to come to Apache??! Sweet! We've used it in OODT since
2003...looking forward to it!
Cheers,
Chris
On 11/8/10 7:04 AM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
As champion for Jena I agree in principle. I can't speak for the Jena team if
course, but representatives are
On 8 November 2010 15:54, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm following up on discussions here regarding relationships between
the incubating Clerezza podling and incoming Stanbol and Jena podlings
(see proposals at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator).
Do people agree
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Olivier Grisel ogri...@nuxeo.com wrote:
On 8 November 2010 15:54, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
... 1. Clerezza, Stanbol and Jena are independent podlings, each aiming
for top-level status
There is a depedency relationship:...
Agreed - I
@incubator.apache.orggeneral@incubator.apache.org
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Clerezza, Stanbol, Jena, Semantic Commons, WDYT?
Wow! Jena is proposing to come to Apache??! Sweet! We've used it in OODT since
2003...looking forward to it!
Cheers,
Chris
On 11/8/10 7
On 08/11/10 15:09, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
Wow! Jena is proposing to come to Apache??!
Yep, the proposal has been under discussion for some time within the
project, and Ross is now taking the lead in bringing it publicly into
the incubator process.
Bertrand wrote:
1. Clerezza, Stanbol
Hi Ian,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com wrote:
...Bertrand wrote:
...
2. A Semantic Commons area is created for common code between these
(and other) projects. Details to be discussed, this does probably not
warrant a separate Apache project, but might be
Perhaps db.apache.org would be a better example? Should there be a
semantic.apache.org?
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Ian,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Ian Dickinson i...@epimorphics.com wrote:
...Bertrand wrote:
...
2. A Semantic
Hi Donald,
On 08/11/10 17:01, Donald Whytock wrote:
Perhaps db.apache.org would be a better example? Should there be a
semantic.apache.org?
I looked around in db.apache.org and I couldn't see anything that said
what the goals of that project are, separate from the goals of the
individual
For me this proposal means we should be aware of possibilities. There is no
intention of forcing collaboration on incubating projects. Each project should
continue to work on it's own graduation.
However there will probably be code that fan be shared. The sharif of
appropriate code can only
I sense an iPhone at work here.
Would that be Omar Sharif?
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@apache.org wrote:
For me this proposal means we should be aware of possibilities. There is no
intention of forcing collaboration on incubating projects. Each project
should
To make the commons discussion more concrete I would suggest the
following items for the commons:
- an IRI library
- some code to do with vocabularies.
- connecting to a URL and doing semweb aware content negotiation (this
is typically done badly)
(Actually the IRI code should probably be
On 11/8/2010 7:14 AM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
There is a depedency relationship:
- Stanbol is a of application level HTTP services and set of OSGi
components that use:
- Clerezza as an OSGi service provider which in turn is using:
- Jena as a lib for parsing and serializing RDF models and as a
Indeed this iPhone is a pain in so many ways. Even worse I seem to have become
blind to so many of it's useful corrections.
I suppose sharing of appropriate code makes more sense than sharif, but I
wouldn't mind having Omar around if that can be pulled off.
Sent from my mobile device.
On 8
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps db.apache.org would be a better example? Should there be a
semantic.apache.org?...
That's a possibility, but I would keep such a website for information
that's common to ASF semantic projects, as opposed to making
On 08/11/10 18:32, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
To make the commons discussion more concrete I would suggest the
following items for the commons:
- an IRI library
- some code to do with vocabularies.
- connecting to a URL and doing semweb aware content negotiation (this
is typically done badly)
On 08/11/10 17:30, Ian Dickinson wrote:
Hi Donald,
On 08/11/10 17:01, Donald Whytock wrote:
Perhaps db.apache.org would be a better example? Should there be a
semantic.apache.org?
I looked around in db.apache.org and I couldn't see anything that said
what the goals of that project are,
31 matches
Mail list logo
