You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commonsrdf.apache.org by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@apache.org> on 2016/02/25 20:12:54 UTC
March 2016 Report
Greetings, {podling} developers!
This is a reminder that your report is due next Wednesday, March
2nd. Details below.
Best,
Marvin Humphrey, Report Manager for March, on behalf of the
Incubator PMC
---------------
Dear podling,
This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
prepare your quarterly board report.
The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 March 2016, 10:30 am PDT.
The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
submission (Wed, March 2nd).
Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
meeting.
Thanks,
The Apache Incubator PMC
Submitting your Report
----------------------
Your report should contain the following:
* Your project name
* A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
the project or necessarily of its field
* A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
towards graduation.
* Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
aware of
* How has the community developed since the last report
* How has the project developed since the last report.
This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2016
Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
this page is created from a template.
Mentors
-------
Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are
following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms
for the Incubator PMC.
Incubator PMC
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 27/02/16 11:58, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> I am also sad to see we are not achieving our objectives. I would love for
> Commons RDF to be ready, personally I still feel the need for Commons RDF
> at least once a month, just trying to do simple things like add 4 lines of
> RDF metadata to something is clunky (and widely differr) with the existing
> frameworks.
>
> I would however disagree slightly in that I think we *have* achieved a
> simple and generic API. However we have failed to get traction from the
> frameworks and have suffered from technical and political disagreements.
> (just like any formal approaches to standardisation would)
Agreed.
> Does that mean the idea of Commons RDF is dead? Or could we move towards a
> more typical Apache Commons approach where Commons RDF is useful by itself
> for regular Java developers, and framework integration becomes optional?
Interesting idea.
> Even if we follow such an approach I think we agree we don't want Commons
> RDF to become yet another RDF toolbox like Marmotta, Clerezz, and not
> another full-blown triple store like Sesame or Jena. However I don't think
> it would be too much of a change of direction if we for instance add a
> commonsrdf-parsers module that utilises existing parsers and writers from
> say Jena. With that Commons RDF would be useful out of the box, and with a
> simple API that doesn't tie you in too tightly, so it would still be
> possible to migrate from Commons RDF to "stronger stuff", even if that
> would mean code changes.
This code parses into a Commons RDF graph using Jena parsers:
https://github.com/afs/commonsrdf-jena/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/jena/commonsrdf/examples/Ex_ParseIntoCommonsRDFGraph.java
There is a writing example as well.
It goes parser -> Jena objects -> Commons RDF objects. It isn't too
expensive on objects though churn is non-zero and, at max speed, churn
matters, not for general use.
It *might* be possible to structure the parsers to output to a Commons
RDF adapter directly (see RIOT's ParserProfile - made generic on the
output types, though the steps are strings->Nodes then nodes->triples
and of course Jena has generalized RDF triples).
Caveat: Having just spent time getting the parsers as fast as possible,
I'm not keen on introducing an abstraction point if that slows down the
Jena case (NT is 250-500K TPS and quite data shape sensitive now).
> In a way I would say it's easier to migrate from Commons RDF to one of the
> big ones, than between the big ones, simply because there are not too many
> fancy and cool features.
>
> Personally I was planning to pick up Commons RDF work this spring to
> hopefully get it into such a shape. But a community of one is not a
> community. So I understand if the rest of the team think retiring Commons
> RDF is a better path.
I am learning from the Commons RDF design and will be putting a thing
like, but not exactly, RDFFactory into RIOT. (I happen to want to
control interning object to pack in-memory better).
Andy
Something like:
public interface FactoryRDF {
public Triple createTriple(Node subject, Node predicate, Node object) ;
public Quad createQuad(Node graph,
Node subject, Node predicate, Node object) ;
public Node createURI(String uriStr) ;
public Node createTypedLiteral(String lexical, RDFDatatype datatype) ;
public Node createLangLiteral(String lexical, String langTag) ;
public Node createStringLiteral(String lexical) ;
public Node createBlankNode() ;
public Node createBlankNode(String label) ;
public Node createBlankNode(long mostSigBits, long leastSigBits) ;
}
> On 26 Feb 2016 08:28, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss something is in my mind for
>> quite long time...
>>
>> FMPOV it's clear the project is failing in the two main goals we had
>> (provide a simple and generic api and get it adopted by actual
>> implementations). There are many reasons why we reached that, but I don't
>> think I want to discuss them now.
>>
>> So, do you think is time to drop-off?
>>
>> I hope we can gather enough opinions to know what we actually want to
>> report.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings, {podling} developers!
>>>
>>> This is a reminder that your report is due next Wednesday, March
>>> 2nd. Details below.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Marvin Humphrey, Report Manager for March, on behalf of the
>>> Incubator PMC
>>>
>>> ---------------
>>>
>>> Dear podling,
>>>
>>> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
>>> Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
>>> prepare your quarterly board report.
>>>
>>> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 March 2016, 10:30 am PDT.
>>> The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
>>> report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
>>> before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
>>> submission (Wed, March 2nd).
>>>
>>> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
>>> PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
>>> very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> The Apache Incubator PMC
>>>
>>> Submitting your Report
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> Your report should contain the following:
>>>
>>> * Your project name
>>> * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
>>> the project or necessarily of its field
>>> * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
>>> towards graduation.
>>> * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
>>> aware of
>>> * How has the community developed since the last report
>>> * How has the project developed since the last report.
>>>
>>> This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2016
>>>
>>> Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
>>> this page is created from a template.
>>>
>>> Mentors
>>> -------
>>>
>>> Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
>>> the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are
>>> following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms
>>> for the Incubator PMC.
>>>
>>> Incubator PMC
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergio Fernández
>> Partner Technology Manager
>> Redlink GmbH
>> m: +43 6602747925
>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>> w: http://redlink.co
>>
>
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
I am also sad to see we are not achieving our objectives. I would love for
Commons RDF to be ready, personally I still feel the need for Commons RDF
at least once a month, just trying to do simple things like add 4 lines of
RDF metadata to something is clunky (and widely differr) with the existing
frameworks.
I would however disagree slightly in that I think we *have* achieved a
simple and generic API. However we have failed to get traction from the
frameworks and have suffered from technical and political disagreements.
(just like any formal approaches to standardisation would)
Does that mean the idea of Commons RDF is dead? Or could we move towards a
more typical Apache Commons approach where Commons RDF is useful by itself
for regular Java developers, and framework integration becomes optional?
Even if we follow such an approach I think we agree we don't want Commons
RDF to become yet another RDF toolbox like Marmotta, Clerezz, and not
another full-blown triple store like Sesame or Jena. However I don't think
it would be too much of a change of direction if we for instance add a
commonsrdf-parsers module that utilises existing parsers and writers from
say Jena. With that Commons RDF would be useful out of the box, and with a
simple API that doesn't tie you in too tightly, so it would still be
possible to migrate from Commons RDF to "stronger stuff", even if that
would mean code changes.
In a way I would say it's easier to migrate from Commons RDF to one of the
big ones, than between the big ones, simply because there are not too many
fancy and cool features.
Personally I was planning to pick up Commons RDF work this spring to
hopefully get it into such a shape. But a community of one is not a
community. So I understand if the rest of the team think retiring Commons
RDF is a better path.
On 26 Feb 2016 08:28, "Sergio Fernández" <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss something is in my mind for
> quite long time...
>
> FMPOV it's clear the project is failing in the two main goals we had
> (provide a simple and generic api and get it adopted by actual
> implementations). There are many reasons why we reached that, but I don't
> think I want to discuss them now.
>
> So, do you think is time to drop-off?
>
> I hope we can gather enough opinions to know what we actually want to
> report.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings, {podling} developers!
> >
> > This is a reminder that your report is due next Wednesday, March
> > 2nd. Details below.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey, Report Manager for March, on behalf of the
> > Incubator PMC
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Dear podling,
> >
> > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
> > Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
> > prepare your quarterly board report.
> >
> > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 March 2016, 10:30 am PDT.
> > The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> > report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> > before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> > submission (Wed, March 2nd).
> >
> > Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
> > PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
> > very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
> > meeting.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > The Apache Incubator PMC
> >
> > Submitting your Report
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Your report should contain the following:
> >
> > * Your project name
> > * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
> > the project or necessarily of its field
> > * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
> > towards graduation.
> > * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
> > aware of
> > * How has the community developed since the last report
> > * How has the project developed since the last report.
> >
> > This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2016
> >
> > Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
> > this page is created from a template.
> >
> > Mentors
> > -------
> >
> > Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
> > the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are
> > following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms
> > for the Incubator PMC.
> >
> > Incubator PMC
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
Re: March 2016 Report
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi everybody,
I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss something is in my mind for
quite long time...
FMPOV it's clear the project is failing in the two main goals we had
(provide a simple and generic api and get it adopted by actual
implementations). There are many reasons why we reached that, but I don't
think I want to discuss them now.
So, do you think is time to drop-off?
I hope we can gather enough opinions to know what we actually want to
report.
Cheers,
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Greetings, {podling} developers!
>
> This is a reminder that your report is due next Wednesday, March
> 2nd. Details below.
>
> Best,
>
> Marvin Humphrey, Report Manager for March, on behalf of the
> Incubator PMC
>
> ---------------
>
> Dear podling,
>
> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache
> Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to
> prepare your quarterly board report.
>
> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 16 March 2016, 10:30 am PDT.
> The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
> report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks
> before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
> submission (Wed, March 2nd).
>
> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator
> PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the
> very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board
> meeting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> The Apache Incubator PMC
>
> Submitting your Report
>
> ----------------------
>
> Your report should contain the following:
>
> * Your project name
> * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of
> the project or necessarily of its field
> * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move
> towards graduation.
> * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be
> aware of
> * How has the community developed since the last report
> * How has the project developed since the last report.
>
> This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/March2016
>
> Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before
> this page is created from a template.
>
> Mentors
> -------
>
> Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on
> the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are
> following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms
> for the Incubator PMC.
>
> Incubator PMC
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co