On Friday 26 June 2009 18:08:52 Leo Sauermann wrote: > If possible, it would be good if you could look into the currenty ANT > scripts that do the whole business of generating the HTML files and > converting the ontologies.
I will try. Never used ant before but I will manage. :) > The current layout is not because we like chaos, but because our current > set of ANT scripts works with that setup and it was too hard to change > the script (it was easier to just put all ontologies into the same > folder and then tweak the ant script) sure. I know how this works. Stuff grows. > In general, I do not like the smell of release/draft folders, but I > think its ok. > I think each ontology should be in its own folder and some readme.txt > should show the status, but its also fine the way with superfolders. but I thought about that, too. But a folder structure seems cleaner to me. You can get all stable ones by simply checking out that folder. It is also simpler for release scripts, not to mention a human trying to understand the structure. > we should not try to classify them further using folder strucutres, this > will end up in sucking, rather use the wiki to guide people around. > > The W3C way is something like > ...2009/06/ndo-draft .... then > ...2006/08/ndo-draft ... then > ...tr/ndo I doubt we need this. The year is not really interesting IMHO, it is in the svn metadata anyway. > we should use SVN tags to mark releases and otherwise keep the files > always in the same folder, its much more convenient, but also here I am > open for ideas. yes, svn tags for releases. > about TRIG: (I would like N3, see below) > this is fine, we stopped using protégé for ontology development some > time ago, because as we are doing a standardization process, the SVN > logs are very very very important to verify what chnages have been done, > and a visual ontology editor sometimes reformats the whole file, which > makes it impossible to verify what has been changed by whom and why, so > I am in favor for TRIG and text files. > Could someone write this down on our OntologyMaintenance page? > > there is only one problem - there is a lack of online tools [1] for > checking/validating/converting trig, this sucks. For the sake of keeping > a sane mind, and being quick while hacking, > I would propose to use N3 instead because there is more tool support for > it. > > [1] > http://rdfabout.com/demo/validator/index.xpd > http://www.mindswap.org/2002/rdfconvert/ > -> these tools, which I daily use when cheking ontologies, do not > support trig. > Trig=bad > n3=good hm, but wouldn't that again mean to have two files: the data graph and the metadata graph? I also wanted to avoid that. The other possibility would be to auto-generate the metadata from the release date and maybe the last svn change, the svn commiters and a metadata file. Cheers, Sebastian _______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
