You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commonsrdf.apache.org by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> on 2015/04/16 17:54:24 UTC
[DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Hi everybody,
give the latest discussion, I think we have lost a bit the focus we had for
our first release. Therefore I'd like to start talk about it. Looking to
the mailing list and issue tracker, I'll try to summarize the current
status, and see what we can afford for 0.1*:
* I think we can continue with the plan an use the current
groupId:artifactId, which should solve COMMONSRDF-2.
* The big issue remains with blank nodes. For me it's fine to go out with
an api defining a simple contract, then is up to each implementation to
take care of special details. That means we shift COMMONSRDF-6 and
COMMONSRDF-14 to version 0.2.
* I guess immutability requires further discussion, so also
shifting COMMONSRDF-7 to 0.2.
* Current version of the simple implementation is enough for testing the
api and showing some ideas to actual implementators.
In addition I'm working to get the site up (see INFRA-9260 for details),
but I'm confident to find a solution with the infra people in the next few
days.
The, I ask: is there any other thing that stop us for preparing release 0.1?
Thanks.
Best regards,
(*) with 0.1 I generically refer to both commons-rdf-api-0.1-incubating
and commons-rdf-simple-0.1.0-incubating artifacts
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Right. Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 17/04/15 08:26, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>
>> This is the right naming scheme but the new POMs disagree and have
>>> >
>>> >commons-rdf-api-incubating-0.1
>>> >
>>> >("-incubating" in the artifact name, not the version)
>>> >
>>> >I guess that was not intended?
>>> >
>>>
>> No, my mistake. Already fixed in the HEAD of our repository.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>
> It has to be 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT (maven cares that SNAPSHOT is last)
>
> Fixed
>
> Andy
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 17/04/15 08:26, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> This is the right naming scheme but the new POMs disagree and have
>> >
>> >commons-rdf-api-incubating-0.1
>> >
>> >("-incubating" in the artifact name, not the version)
>> >
>> >I guess that was not intended?
>> >
> No, my mistake. Already fixed in the HEAD of our repository.
>
> Cheers,
It has to be 0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT (maven cares that SNAPSHOT is last)
Fixed
Andy
Re: [DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
I kindly ask everybody to focus on this topic. We have to move on, I have
the impression that's not the case.
If I do not get any feedback in the next 48h hours, I'll cast a vote with
the current code to be released.
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Not a blocker for 0.1 from my POV.
>>
>
> And for the rest of us?
>
> --
> 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] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Not a blocker for 0.1 from my POV.
>
And for the rest of us?
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 17/04/15 08:26, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> OK (the issue seems to mix contract requirements and implementation,
>> >though any likely implementation has not very much room for manoeuvre as
>> >far as I can see)
>
> The question is: can we keep it as it it for 0.1 and work on it for the
> next version/s?
>
>
Not a blocker for 0.1 from my POV.
Andy
Re: [DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi Andy,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 16/04/15 16:54, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>>
>> * The big issue remains with blank nodes. For me it's fine to go out with
>> an api defining a simple contract, then is up to each implementation to
>> take care of special details. That means we shift COMMONSRDF-6 and
>> COMMONSRDF-14 to version 0.2.
>>
>
> +1 (go as is) for blank nodes
>
> +0 for IRI and literals : ideally, define hashcode and equals as default
> methods based on getters. Not a blocker.
>
> (This is saying IRI and literals can pass between implementations, blank
> nodes do not provide the necessary guarantees in 0.1.)
Understand.
>
> * I guess immutability requires further discussion, so also
>> shifting COMMONSRDF-7 to 0.2.
>>
>
> OK (the issue seems to mix contract requirements and implementation,
> though any likely implementation has not very much room for manoeuvre as
> far as I can see)
The question is: can we keep it as it it for 0.1 and work on it for the
next version/s?
> * Current version of the simple implementation is enough for testing the
>> api and showing some ideas to actual implementators.
>>
>
> OK - other than "simple" is becoming a misnomer!
I do agree. We can try to find a better name... actually the description
states: "Simple (if not naive) implementation of Commons RDF API" xD
You know that my goal was always to trust on Jena and Sesame as real
implementations. So whatever name summarizes that idea would be fine.
> In addition I'm working to get the site up (see INFRA-9260 for details),
>> but I'm confident to find a solution with the infra people in the next few
>> days.
>>
>
> Great - I think this is a blocker for a release, or at least announcing it.
Yes, I know, working on it...
> (*) with 0.1 I generically refer to both commons-rdf-api-0.1-incubating
>> and commons-rdf-simple-0.1.0-incubating artifacts
>>
>
> This is the right naming scheme but the new POMs disagree and have
>
> commons-rdf-api-incubating-0.1
>
> ("-incubating" in the artifact name, not the version)
>
> I guess that was not intended?
>
No, my mistake. Already fixed in the HEAD of our repository.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [DISCUSSION] Commons RDF 0.1-incubating
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 16/04/15 16:54, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> give the latest discussion, I think we have lost a bit the focus we had for
> our first release. Therefore I'd like to start talk about it. Looking to
> the mailing list and issue tracker, I'll try to summarize the current
> status, and see what we can afford for 0.1*:
While we get GH/PR sorted out as a project process, let's discuss via
email/JIRA except for specifics of code review for specific PRs (i.e.
the programming details, not API design).
> * I think we can continue with the plan an use the current
> groupId:artifactId, which should solve COMMONSRDF-2.
+1 except see below for naming confusion.
>
> * The big issue remains with blank nodes. For me it's fine to go out with
> an api defining a simple contract, then is up to each implementation to
> take care of special details. That means we shift COMMONSRDF-6 and
> COMMONSRDF-14 to version 0.2.
+1 (go as is) for blank nodes
+0 for IRI and literals : ideally, define hashcode and equals as default
methods based on getters. Not a blocker.
(This is saying IRI and literals can pass between implementations, blank
nodes do not provide the necessary guarantees in 0.1.)
> * I guess immutability requires further discussion, so also
> shifting COMMONSRDF-7 to 0.2.
OK (the issue seems to mix contract requirements and implementation,
though any likely implementation has not very much room for manoeuvre as
far as I can see)
> * Current version of the simple implementation is enough for testing the
> api and showing some ideas to actual implementators.
OK - other than "simple" is becoming a misnomer!
>
> In addition I'm working to get the site up (see INFRA-9260 for details),
> but I'm confident to find a solution with the infra people in the next few
> days.
Great - I think this is a blocker for a release, or at least announcing it.
>
> The, I ask: is there any other thing that stop us for preparing release 0.1?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> (*) with 0.1 I generically refer to both commons-rdf-api-0.1-incubating
> and commons-rdf-simple-0.1.0-incubating artifacts
This is the right naming scheme but the new POMs disagree and have
commons-rdf-api-incubating-0.1
("-incubating" in the artifact name, not the version)
I guess that was not intended?