[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13012037#comment-13012037
]
Enrico Daga commented on STANBOL-3:
-----------------------------------
Anyone knows which was the final decision (if any) about the base identifier
for Stanbol ontologies/vocabularies?
If 2 or 3 are too complicated (number 2 requires a working domain while 3
requires a discussion within the whole Apache), could we go on with 1 for the
incubating period?
If so, which could be the process of publishing ontologies? I propose to have
them in an svn brnch and then setup a redirect from the stanbol website.
> Clearly defined Stanbol vocabularies
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: STANBOL-3
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-3
> Project: Stanbol
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Enrico Daga
>
> The Stanbol software uses some RDF vocabularies with an active role in the
> code (the code refer to these vocabularies).
> For instance, FISE uses a vocabolary for Enhancement description, KReS uses a
> vocabulary for managing ontologies and rules.
> Stanbol vocabularies should:
> - be refactored when moving to stanbol using some common namespace
> - be distributed in a well-formed RDF (which means also well-documented)
> - be collected and versioned in a common svn branch (separated from the one
> of the software code)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
