You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@marmotta.apache.org by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> on 2016/06/08 08:00:15 UTC
[DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Hi,
TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to
discuss what to do.
as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged into
develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make the need
of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a new
release with this feature.
As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to
lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you would
not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we
extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas
(one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with its
quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the near
future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path,
but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
So, summarizing, we have two options:
1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
2) Forget
My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source base
far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and trivial
to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd
like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to do.
What do you think, guys?
Thanks for your time.
Cheers,
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
[2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
[4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: PostGIS Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Apache <tk...@apache.org>.
Hi all
+1 for the easy root. PostGIS is a extension also useful for other works (like SPARQL-MM). So let's become it a required extension.
Regards
Thomas
> Am 10.06.2016 um 10:34 schrieb Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
>
> That's only my point of view... So far everybody looks to be in-line with
> that. But I'd await some more days to gather feedback from some more
> committer before taking a resolutions. Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Rob Atkinson <ro...@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
>> FWIW my opinion is that if you are bound to a specific SQL database, it
>> makes no difference if its Postgres or PostGIS - so take the easy route for
>> now, and if you want to support alternative databases in future include the
>> ability to support plain Postgres as an option at that stage,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 03:20 Andreas Kuckartz <a....@ping.de> wrote:
>>
>>> If I understand this correctly then the question is if PostGIS can
>>> become a required PostgreSQL extension.
>>>
>>> My view: yes. If PostgreSQL can be installed then also installing
>>> PostGIS normally is easy.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
Re: PostGIS Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
That's only my point of view... So far everybody looks to be in-line with
that. But I'd await some more days to gather feedback from some more
committer before taking a resolutions. Thanks.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Rob Atkinson <ro...@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
> FWIW my opinion is that if you are bound to a specific SQL database, it
> makes no difference if its Postgres or PostGIS - so take the easy route for
> now, and if you want to support alternative databases in future include the
> ability to support plain Postgres as an option at that stage,
>
> Rob
>
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 03:20 Andreas Kuckartz <a....@ping.de> wrote:
>
> > If I understand this correctly then the question is if PostGIS can
> > become a required PostgreSQL extension.
> >
> > My view: yes. If PostgreSQL can be installed then also installing
> > PostGIS normally is easy.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
> >
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: PostGIS Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Rob Atkinson <ro...@metalinkage.com.au>.
FWIW my opinion is that if you are bound to a specific SQL database, it
makes no difference if its Postgres or PostGIS - so take the easy route for
now, and if you want to support alternative databases in future include the
ability to support plain Postgres as an option at that stage,
Rob
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 at 03:20 Andreas Kuckartz <a....@ping.de> wrote:
> If I understand this correctly then the question is if PostGIS can
> become a required PostgreSQL extension.
>
> My view: yes. If PostgreSQL can be installed then also installing
> PostGIS normally is easy.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
PostGIS Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Andreas Kuckartz <a....@ping.de>.
If I understand this correctly then the question is if PostGIS can
become a required PostgreSQL extension.
My view: yes. If PostgreSQL can be installed then also installing
PostGIS normally is easy.
Cheers,
Andreas
Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
OK, I think the opinion of the community is clear: we won't
do MARMOTTA-638, so I'll try to focus this week on finally providing a PR
with MARMOTTA-584. Thanks.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Apache <tk...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I already answered in a different thread, but again here:
>
> +1 for b) it should be mandatory
>
> Regards
>
> > Am 08.06.2016 um 17:46 schrieb FRANCISCO XAVIER SUMBA TORAL <
> xavier.sumba93@ucuenca.ec>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Definitely, the new release can’t wait too long. Besides, for a
> PostgreSQL user install PostGIS is feasible, but I don’t discard the option
> that in the future GeoSPARL could be pluggable. It will be like a packet
> manager. It not just helps GeoSPARQL module but also other modules
> > that will appear in the future.
> >
> > So, I choose second option.
> > b) +1
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:20, fernando baculima <fe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all.
> >>
> >> I think it should be mandatory.
> >>
> >> For users who want to use PostgreSQL, somehow, it wouldn't be
> complicated
> >> to install extensions like PostGIS.
> >>
> >> For those who use the default database (H2) or other, I guess there
> won´t
> >> be any trouble
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> 2016-06-08 3:02 GMT-05:00 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
> >>>
> >>> 2) Forget it and make it mandatory
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want
> to
> >>>> discuss what to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged
> >>>> into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to
> make
> >>> the
> >>>> need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a
> >>> new
> >>>> release with this feature.
> >>>>
> >>>> As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be
> to
> >>>> lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you
> >>> would
> >>>> not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
> >>>>
> >>>> The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation:
> as we
> >>>> extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db
> schemas
> >>>> (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
> >>>> complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied
> with
> >>> its
> >>>> quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the
> >>> near
> >>>> future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that
> path,
> >>>> but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Forget
> >>>>
> >>>> My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source
> >>> base
> >>>> far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and
> >>> trivial
> >>>> to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But
> I'd
> >>>> like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what
> to
> >>> do.
> >>>> What do you think, guys?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
> >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
> >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
> >>>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sergio Fernández
> >>>> Partner Technology Manager
> >>>> Redlink GmbH
> >>>> m: +43 6602747925
> >>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> >>>> w: http://redlink.co
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sergio Fernández
> >>> Partner Technology Manager
> >>> Redlink GmbH
> >>> m: +43 6602747925
> >>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> >>> w: http://redlink.co
> >>>
> >
>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Apache <tk...@apache.org>.
Hi all
I already answered in a different thread, but again here:
+1 for b) it should be mandatory
Regards
> Am 08.06.2016 um 17:46 schrieb FRANCISCO XAVIER SUMBA TORAL <xa...@ucuenca.ec>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Definitely, the new release can’t wait too long. Besides, for a PostgreSQL user install PostGIS is feasible, but I don’t discard the option that in the future GeoSPARL could be pluggable. It will be like a packet manager. It not just helps GeoSPARQL module but also other modules
> that will appear in the future.
>
> So, I choose second option.
> b) +1
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:20, fernando baculima <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I think it should be mandatory.
>>
>> For users who want to use PostgreSQL, somehow, it wouldn't be complicated
>> to install extensions like PostGIS.
>>
>> For those who use the default database (H2) or other, I guess there won´t
>> be any trouble
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2016-06-08 3:02 GMT-05:00 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>>>
>>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>>>
>>> 2) Forget it and make it mandatory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to
>>>> discuss what to do.
>>>>
>>>> as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged
>>>> into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make
>>> the
>>>> need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a
>>> new
>>>> release with this feature.
>>>>
>>>> As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to
>>>> lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you
>>> would
>>>> not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
>>>>
>>>> The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we
>>>> extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas
>>>> (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
>>>> complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with
>>> its
>>>> quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the
>>> near
>>>> future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path,
>>>> but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
>>>>
>>>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>>>>
>>>> 2) Forget
>>>>
>>>> My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source
>>> base
>>>> far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and
>>> trivial
>>>> to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd
>>>> like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to
>>> do.
>>>> What do you think, guys?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
>>>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sergio Fernández
>>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>>> Redlink GmbH
>>>> m: +43 6602747925
>>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sergio Fernández
>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>> Redlink GmbH
>>> m: +43 6602747925
>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Thomas Kurz <th...@googlemail.com>.
Hi all
I already answered in a different thread, but again here:
+1 for b) it should be mandatory
Regards
> Am 08.06.2016 um 17:46 schrieb FRANCISCO XAVIER SUMBA TORAL <xa...@ucuenca.ec>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Definitely, the new release can’t wait too long. Besides, for a PostgreSQL user install PostGIS is feasible, but I don’t discard the option that in the future GeoSPARL could be pluggable. It will be like a packet manager. It not just helps GeoSPARQL module but also other modules
> that will appear in the future.
>
> So, I choose second option.
> b) +1
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:20, fernando baculima <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> I think it should be mandatory.
>>
>> For users who want to use PostgreSQL, somehow, it wouldn't be complicated
>> to install extensions like PostGIS.
>>
>> For those who use the default database (H2) or other, I guess there won´t
>> be any trouble
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> 2016-06-08 3:02 GMT-05:00 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>>>
>>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>>>
>>> 2) Forget it and make it mandatory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to
>>>> discuss what to do.
>>>>
>>>> as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged
>>>> into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make
>>> the
>>>> need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a
>>> new
>>>> release with this feature.
>>>>
>>>> As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to
>>>> lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you
>>> would
>>>> not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
>>>>
>>>> The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we
>>>> extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas
>>>> (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
>>>> complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with
>>> its
>>>> quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the
>>> near
>>>> future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path,
>>>> but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
>>>>
>>>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>>>>
>>>> 2) Forget
>>>>
>>>> My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source
>>> base
>>>> far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and
>>> trivial
>>>> to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd
>>>> like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to
>>> do.
>>>> What do you think, guys?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
>>>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sergio Fernández
>>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>>> Redlink GmbH
>>>> m: +43 6602747925
>>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sergio Fernández
>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>> Redlink GmbH
>>> m: +43 6602747925
>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by FRANCISCO XAVIER SUMBA TORAL <xa...@ucuenca.ec>.
Hi,
Definitely, the new release can’t wait too long. Besides, for a PostgreSQL user install PostGIS is feasible, but I don’t discard the option that in the future GeoSPARL could be pluggable. It will be like a packet manager. It not just helps GeoSPARQL module but also other modules
that will appear in the future.
So, I choose second option.
b) +1
Cheers.
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:20, fernando baculima <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I think it should be mandatory.
>
> For users who want to use PostgreSQL, somehow, it wouldn't be complicated
> to install extensions like PostGIS.
>
> For those who use the default database (H2) or other, I guess there won´t
> be any trouble
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> 2016-06-08 3:02 GMT-05:00 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
>
>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>>
>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>>
>> 2) Forget it and make it mandatory
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to
>>> discuss what to do.
>>>
>>> as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged
>>> into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make
>> the
>>> need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a
>> new
>>> release with this feature.
>>>
>>> As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to
>>> lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you
>> would
>>> not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
>>>
>>> The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we
>>> extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas
>>> (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
>>> complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with
>> its
>>> quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the
>> near
>>> future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path,
>>> but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
>>>
>>> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>>>
>>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>>>
>>> 2) Forget
>>>
>>> My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source
>> base
>>> far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and
>> trivial
>>> to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd
>>> like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to
>> do.
>>> What do you think, guys?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
>>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sergio Fernández
>>> Partner Technology Manager
>>> Redlink GmbH
>>> m: +43 6602747925
>>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>>> w: http://redlink.co
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergio Fernández
>> Partner Technology Manager
>> Redlink GmbH
>> m: +43 6602747925
>> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
>> w: http://redlink.co
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by fernando baculima <fe...@gmail.com>.
Hi all.
I think it should be mandatory.
For users who want to use PostgreSQL, somehow, it wouldn't be complicated
to install extensions like PostGIS.
For those who use the default database (H2) or other, I guess there won´t
be any trouble
Cheers
2016-06-08 3:02 GMT-05:00 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>
> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>
> 2) Forget it and make it mandatory
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to
> > discuss what to do.
> >
> > as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged
> > into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make
> the
> > need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a
> new
> > release with this feature.
> >
> > As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to
> > lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you
> would
> > not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
> >
> > The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we
> > extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas
> > (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
> > complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with
> its
> > quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the
> near
> > future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path,
> > but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
> >
> > So, summarizing, we have two options:
> >
> > 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
> >
> > 2) Forget
> >
> > My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source
> base
> > far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and
> trivial
> > to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd
> > like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to
> do.
> > What do you think, guys?
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
> > [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sergio Fernández
> > Partner Technology Manager
> > Redlink GmbH
> > m: +43 6602747925
> > e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> > w: http://redlink.co
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] MARMOTTA-638: Make GeoSPARQL optional
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
So, summarizing, we have two options:
1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
2) Forget it and make it mandatory
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to
> discuss what to do.
>
> as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged
> into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make the
> need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a new
> release with this feature.
>
> As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to
> lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you would
> not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL).
>
> The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we
> extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas
> (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which
> complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with its
> quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the near
> future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path,
> but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion.
>
> So, summarizing, we have two options:
>
> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional
>
> 2) Forget
>
> My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source base
> far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and trivial
> to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd
> like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to do.
> What do you think, guys?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584
> [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638
> [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co