You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@clerezza.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2012/11/02 10:28:24 UTC
The future of Clerezza
Hi,
We need to report to the Incubator PMC this month, I think it's a good
opportunity to discuss the future of this project.
What I see is:
Very low activity related to Clerezza's core "semantic CMS" mission
Some activity related to Clerezza's reusable semantic libraries
Obvious decrease in commit activity since 2010:
http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fincubator%2Fclerezza
Little activity on lists
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/ and
jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA
Is anyone planning to work more on the core CMS parts soon?
Without that, I don't think the project can graduate as is, as the
activity on its core parts is not sufficient to sustain a project,
IMO.
The alternative would be to donate the semantic libs to Stanbol, and
shut down the rest - people are free to fork the code elsewhere
anyway.
WDYT?
-Bertrand
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tommaso Teofili
<to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Could we aim to be a proper Stanbol subproject ?...
Not sure if that's needed, IMO the Stanbol PMC could just take care of
those few additional libraries as part of their normal activities.
-Bertrand
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Tsuy Ito <ts...@trialox.org>.
Hi
We will discuss "the future of clerezza" this week. Currently, I agree with Bertrand's opionen. IMO main problem was/is some fundamental differences in the course of action between clerezza committers. So, we developed a lot of CMS modules on top of clerezza but did not contribute any of these utils, tools etc.
Regards
Tsuy
On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> moving Clerezza libs to Stanbol would be an option but I am wondering
> if the Stanbol community is strong enough to additionally maintain
> this code. The Stanbol code base is quite large with lots of modules
> and we already have to focus on some core components (and move the
> unmaintained stuff to contrib). So only moving the code does IMO solve
> only one part of the problem. The people behind the code should be
> willing to move and keep contributing. Otherwise I see the potential
> that the Stanbol team decides to switch entirely from Clerezza to
> other alternatives.
>
> These are just my current thoughts without having any discussion on
> the Stanbol list.
>
> Best,
> - Fabian
>
> 2012/11/2 Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Bertrand,
>>
>> I recently just worked on the UIMA integration (you can have a look at my
>> presentation for the latest OSGi community event [1]) and I personally
>> don't think I'll be working on the CMS stuff in the near future.
>> I agree with you that at the moment it doesn't seem we have enough energy
>> to keep Clerezza as is and I'd see joining Apache Stanbol the more
>> reasonable move.
>> Could we aim to be a proper Stanbol subproject ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tommaso
>>
>> [1] : http://www.slideshare.net/teofili/adapting-apache-uima-to-osgi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/2 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We need to report to the Incubator PMC this month, I think it's a good
>>> opportunity to discuss the future of this project.
>>>
>>> What I see is:
>>>
>>> Very low activity related to Clerezza's core "semantic CMS" mission
>>>
>>> Some activity related to Clerezza's reusable semantic libraries
>>>
>>> Obvious decrease in commit activity since 2010:
>>>
>>> http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fincubator%2Fclerezza
>>>
>>> Little activity on lists
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/ and
>>> jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA
>>>
>>> Is anyone planning to work more on the core CMS parts soon?
>>>
>>> Without that, I don't think the project can graduate as is, as the
>>> activity on its core parts is not sufficient to sustain a project,
>>> IMO.
>>>
>>> The alternative would be to donate the semantic libs to Stanbol, and
>>> shut down the rest - people are free to fork the code elsewhere
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
--trialox ag-------------------------------------
tsuyoshi ito
hardturmstrasse 101
8005 zuerich
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
I think there would be willing to maintain / work on the RDF API at least
from a bunch of us (but obviously I can speak only for myself).
I personally would be happy to keep the Clerezza - UIMA stuff and it may be
ok for Stanbol as there is already something for that.
But however we perhaps should decide what we want to do first and then
identify which parts can be ported afterwards.
I tend to agree that the CMS stuff, even if good, has not been touched for
some time and therefore wouldn't make much sense to keep on that but if
Tsuy and/or others have different plans / point of views I'd be happy to
hear :)
Regards,
Tommaso
2012/11/6 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> On Friday, November 2, 2012, Fabian Christ wrote:
>
> > moving Clerezza libs to Stanbol would be an option but I am wondering
> > if the Stanbol community is strong enough to additionally maintain
> > this code...
>
> Without having analyzed in detail, my impression was that the parts that
> Stanbol uses are not very complex, so if the move is limited to those parts
> that should be doable? I didn't mean to move the CMS-related parts of
> Clerezza, just the reusable RDF and other libraries that Stanbol is using.
>
> > ...The people behind the code should be
> > willing to move and keep contributing. Otherwise I see the potential
> > that the Stanbol team decides to switch entirely from Clerezza to
> > other alternatives....
>
> Agreed, but if we consider the libraries that Stanbol is using, aren't
> those people already Stanbol committers anyway, ?
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Daniel Spicar
<da...@trialox.org> wrote:
> No it's not like that. The people are here already. What was happening is
> that there were disagreements and delays until Clerezza did the first
> release and therefore it was opted do development on a separate project
> based on Clerezza...
Ah ok, I see, thanks for clarifying.
I agree that the Apache model, which requires building consensus, can
sometimes slow down progress, and it requires effort for people to
adapt to that - including sometimes technical changes that help reduce
the "consensus friction area".
It's understandable that some people don't want to spend too much time
on those things, and Apache is not for all projects anyway, so if
people prefer to work on that code elsewhere it's not a problem. We
just need to draw the right conclusions here.
-Bertrand
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Daniel Spicar <da...@trialox.org>.
No it's not like that. The people are here already. What was happening is
that there were disagreements and delays until Clerezza did the first
release and therefore it was opted do development on a separate project
based on Clerezza. However there are many things that could have been
contributed to Clerezza or things that should have been implemented in
Clerezza but were then 'privately' patched on branches of Clerezza in order
to avoid the complications experienced earlier. Probably not all of these
things would have been so controversial or time consuming but contributions
to Clerezza were only rarely attempted. Anyway these projects are not as
active anymore as to keep Clerezza CMS components alive by themselfs but I
think a lot of energy got diverted somewhere there.
On 6 November 2012 11:03, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Daniel Spicar
> <da...@trialox.org> wrote:
> > ...there are still some projects that use Clerezza CMS components.
> > From my experience they did not contribute much to Clerezza because the
> > effort and time needed to get changes approved and subsequently get a
> > module released scared them off from even trying...
>
> If a few of those folks would show up *right now* it's probably the
> last call to keep Clerezza running here.
>
> Becoming a committer shouldn't be hard given that the project is in
> need of new energy, and people can always do releases themselves (at
> their own risk) whenever they like.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Daniel Spicar
<da...@trialox.org> wrote:
> ...there are still some projects that use Clerezza CMS components.
> From my experience they did not contribute much to Clerezza because the
> effort and time needed to get changes approved and subsequently get a
> module released scared them off from even trying...
If a few of those folks would show up *right now* it's probably the
last call to keep Clerezza running here.
Becoming a committer shouldn't be hard given that the project is in
need of new energy, and people can always do releases themselves (at
their own risk) whenever they like.
-Bertrand
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Daniel Spicar <da...@trialox.org>.
I could imagine there would be enough people that could support the RDF
libraries and data access layers. They are used not onnly in Stanbol and
when they are actually used people might put in the required effort. I
think part of the problem is that to me it didn't seem like the CMS
components are moving anywhere so I preferred to work on other projects in
my free time.
However there are still some projects that use Clerezza CMS components.
>From my experience they did not contribute much to Clerezza because the
effort and time needed to get changes approved and subsequently get a
module released scared them off from even trying. Maybe Clerezza CMS
components might still develop some life on places like GitHub where
collaboration is more informal and people can just fork it and implement
their changes and offer their changes as pull requests. In worst case it
will be a nice archive ;)
Daniel
On 6 November 2012 09:48, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012, Fabian Christ wrote:
>
> > moving Clerezza libs to Stanbol would be an option but I am wondering
> > if the Stanbol community is strong enough to additionally maintain
> > this code...
>
> Without having analyzed in detail, my impression was that the parts that
> Stanbol uses are not very complex, so if the move is limited to those parts
> that should be doable? I didn't mean to move the CMS-related parts of
> Clerezza, just the reusable RDF and other libraries that Stanbol is using.
>
> > ...The people behind the code should be
> > willing to move and keep contributing. Otherwise I see the potential
> > that the Stanbol team decides to switch entirely from Clerezza to
> > other alternatives....
>
> Agreed, but if we consider the libraries that Stanbol is using, aren't
> those people already Stanbol committers anyway, ?
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Friday, November 2, 2012, Fabian Christ wrote:
> moving Clerezza libs to Stanbol would be an option but I am wondering
> if the Stanbol community is strong enough to additionally maintain
> this code...
Without having analyzed in detail, my impression was that the parts that
Stanbol uses are not very complex, so if the move is limited to those parts
that should be doable? I didn't mean to move the CMS-related parts of
Clerezza, just the reusable RDF and other libraries that Stanbol is using.
> ...The people behind the code should be
> willing to move and keep contributing. Otherwise I see the potential
> that the Stanbol team decides to switch entirely from Clerezza to
> other alternatives....
Agreed, but if we consider the libraries that Stanbol is using, aren't
those people already Stanbol committers anyway, ?
-Bertrand
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
moving Clerezza libs to Stanbol would be an option but I am wondering
if the Stanbol community is strong enough to additionally maintain
this code. The Stanbol code base is quite large with lots of modules
and we already have to focus on some core components (and move the
unmaintained stuff to contrib). So only moving the code does IMO solve
only one part of the problem. The people behind the code should be
willing to move and keep contributing. Otherwise I see the potential
that the Stanbol team decides to switch entirely from Clerezza to
other alternatives.
These are just my current thoughts without having any discussion on
the Stanbol list.
Best,
- Fabian
2012/11/2 Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> I recently just worked on the UIMA integration (you can have a look at my
> presentation for the latest OSGi community event [1]) and I personally
> don't think I'll be working on the CMS stuff in the near future.
> I agree with you that at the moment it doesn't seem we have enough energy
> to keep Clerezza as is and I'd see joining Apache Stanbol the more
> reasonable move.
> Could we aim to be a proper Stanbol subproject ?
>
> Thanks,
> Tommaso
>
> [1] : http://www.slideshare.net/teofili/adapting-apache-uima-to-osgi
>
>
>
>
> 2012/11/2 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We need to report to the Incubator PMC this month, I think it's a good
>> opportunity to discuss the future of this project.
>>
>> What I see is:
>>
>> Very low activity related to Clerezza's core "semantic CMS" mission
>>
>> Some activity related to Clerezza's reusable semantic libraries
>>
>> Obvious decrease in commit activity since 2010:
>>
>> http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fincubator%2Fclerezza
>>
>> Little activity on lists
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/ and
>> jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA
>>
>> Is anyone planning to work more on the core CMS parts soon?
>>
>> Without that, I don't think the project can graduate as is, as the
>> activity on its core parts is not sufficient to sustain a project,
>> IMO.
>>
>> The alternative would be to donate the semantic libs to Stanbol, and
>> shut down the rest - people are free to fork the code elsewhere
>> anyway.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: The future of Clerezza
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Hi Bertrand,
I recently just worked on the UIMA integration (you can have a look at my
presentation for the latest OSGi community event [1]) and I personally
don't think I'll be working on the CMS stuff in the near future.
I agree with you that at the moment it doesn't seem we have enough energy
to keep Clerezza as is and I'd see joining Apache Stanbol the more
reasonable move.
Could we aim to be a proper Stanbol subproject ?
Thanks,
Tommaso
[1] : http://www.slideshare.net/teofili/adapting-apache-uima-to-osgi
2012/11/2 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> Hi,
>
> We need to report to the Incubator PMC this month, I think it's a good
> opportunity to discuss the future of this project.
>
> What I see is:
>
> Very low activity related to Clerezza's core "semantic CMS" mission
>
> Some activity related to Clerezza's reusable semantic libraries
>
> Obvious decrease in commit activity since 2010:
>
> http://svnsearch.org/svnsearch/repos/ASF/search?path=%2Fincubator%2Fclerezza
>
> Little activity on lists
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-clerezza-dev/ and
> jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLEREZZA
>
> Is anyone planning to work more on the core CMS parts soon?
>
> Without that, I don't think the project can graduate as is, as the
> activity on its core parts is not sufficient to sustain a project,
> IMO.
>
> The alternative would be to donate the semantic libs to Stanbol, and
> shut down the rest - people are free to fork the code elsewhere
> anyway.
>
> WDYT?
>
> -Bertrand
>