On 09/02/17 04:02, Peter Ansell wrote:
Not all fluent configuration APIs are "builder patterns". By that I
mean that you can have a "return this" convention for the builder with
mutable fields without it building or cloning new objects.
A builder pattern is characterised by a terminal method r
On 15/12/16 11:04, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 14/12/16 23:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi All: I am requesting your feedback before I send this off.
## Activity:
- The project is active with 6 releases this reporting period. We
released
On 14/12/16 23:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi All: I am requesting your feedback before I send this off.
## Activity:
- The project is active with 6 releases this reporting period. We released
one new component Commons RNG 1.0. Commons Math still feels in semi-limbo
and
now depends on Common
On 30/11/16 11:03, Sergio Fernández wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
There are other RDF related projects in ASF. That's a confusing choice of
key name.
I agree. But then, how do we accommodate to the current Apache Commons
naming in Jira? Feedback wou
There are other RDF related projects in ASF. That's a confusing choice
of key name.
Andy
On 30/11/16 07:33, Sergio Fernández wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
Is there anything to be done for jira?
Well, that's a question I also had. So far we have been
http://reporter.apache.org/ generates basic stats for projects and it says:
## PMC/Committership changes:
- Currently 35 PMC members in the project.
- No new PMC members added in the last 3 months
- Last PMC addition was Henning Schmiedehausen at Wed Nov 06 2013
## Mailing list activity:
Sorry to interrupt - this is not a "for" or "against" comment but
something I want to make sure was considered.
Apache is independent of any commercial entity.
For example, there was a discussion about the "github/forkme" stripe in
project home pages. The outcome was that it was too much like
On 19/02/15 16:05, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
Great we are on the same page :)
I also think a SPARQL backend will be a reasonable way to push the API
boundaries, so we can evaluate aspects relating to streaming, blank
node identifiers, etc. for an implementation that has less direct
control of i
On 03/02/15 15:42, Reto Gmür wrote:
Should BNode be shareable across Graphs? The Abstract Syntax says that they
can be shared across the graphs of the same dataset,
Yes - they can be shared.
The note about shared across the graphs of the same dataset is to
highlight an important point. It is
Hi Reto,
There is a key point in this disussion that is worth pulling out.
RDF has a data model and there is also an interpretation of the data model.
The data model is one spec ("Concepts and Abstract Syntax") and the
interpretation in another ("Semantics", also commonly referred to as the
M
On 30/01/15 07:45, Sergio Fernández wrote:
On 29/01/15 15:28, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
So maybe it's better if someone else steps up (we have people here who
meet
the necessary requirements), and I will just join the incubator
commons rdf
community and help you that way.
Yes, having you in the c
On 27/01/15 17:11, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
I agree that "local scope" should be clarified
"local scope" is a piece of terminology used only for RDF syntax. Once
away from syntax, there is no "scope" to a blank node.
It is described in:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-blank-n
On 20/01/15 14:08, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 20/01/2015 13:07, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really
On 20/01/15 08:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better
destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF
community not really understanding how the ASF works.
I am disappointed by that comment. There are several ASF pr
graph level is
naturally driven by the specs but as soon as systems issues get thrown
into the mix, the choice space is much larger.
Andy
Thanks!
Bruno
- Original Message -
From: Andy Seaborne
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 7:40 AM
Subject: Re
On 18/01/15 12:07, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
...
To sum this up: All that is blocking github commons rdf to join Apache
Commons is the mailing list thing?
>
> Regards,
> Benedikt
Some thinking out loud ... in email ...
There are two mailing lists issues : "dev" and "commits".
"commits" has some
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Minto van der Sluis mailto:mi...@xup.nl>> wrote:
Hi Reto,
Thanks for showing interest in my opinion.
First of all the whole discussion around commons-rdf involves way to
much religion. Religion as in: my implemention should be reference
On 14/01/15 18:34, Reto Gmür wrote:
There has been an indirect reply here:
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/issues/43, as the issue point to
this thread I though to add a back-link but I would prefer to have a
discussion here and to discuss about concrete code proposals
I would very m
On 15/01/15 11:52, Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote:
Hello!
I feel like I can't help much in the current discussion. But just wanted to
chime in
and tell that I'm +1 for a [rdf] component in Apache Commons. As a commons
committer I'd
like to help.
I started watching the GitHub repository and have su
On 16/01/15 00:29, Peter Ansell wrote:
I hope there is no bad blood from the aborted effort last time. There
were a variety of causes, including the reasons above but we all
joined the GitHub discussion with the goal of hosting the project
inside of the Apache Foundation and IMO Apache Commons is
On 15/01/15 16:15, Gilles wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:52:11 -0500, Hank Grabowski wrote:
Good call, Silviu!
The most recent version of their survey of Plumbr installations (823 in
total) was May of last year, only a few months after Java 8 came out
(link
below). At that time the break down w
Phil Steitz wrote:
The question we always ask
about new component ideas is can we grow and sustain a community
around them.
Couldn't agree more. As you may have noticed, there is a community and
it's been arguing for years!
>> >We came here originally. We found that there is a Commons way
Hi,
Apache Commons serves a specific purpose for collaboration amongst
Apache projects. There is already collaboration between projects in
Apache in the RDF space. We have projects using each others releases
(Clerezza uses Jena; Stanbol use Clerezza and specifically the Jena
providers; we a
On 19/12/14 08:58, Reto Gmür wrote:
Apart from yours all reactions on the clerezza mailing lists where positive
including the one from a contributor to the github-commons project.
I'm sorry you feel that way - it was not my intention. With my first
email [1] was intended to be positive and hig
I am rather surprised by the approach here.
There are several RDF-related projects - Jena, Marmotta, Any23, Stanbol,
Clerezza and other that use RDF.
How do they fit in?
reto wrote:
Following the recent announcement and as mentioned yesterday I've started
some steps towards commons RDF.
Ho
On 21/07/14 13:05, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Hi Sergio,
If I understand well this is a kind of specification API? The actual
implementations will be done in Jena/Marmotta/OpenRDF?
Emmanuel Bourg
While, as I understand it, OpenRDF [*] is adopting the interface natively,
It does not look any any
On 21/07/14 12:12, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
About the commons-rdf code itself: I only took a very brief look. As far as
I understand this is only supposed to be an API, hence there are no
implementation classes, right? One thing that caught my eye is
BlankNoreOrIRI... Is this defined as such in the
27 matches
Mail list logo
