[Xesam] Desktop ontology svn layout

[Sebastian Trüg]

On Friday 26 June 2009 18:08:52 Leo Sauermann wrote:
> If possible, it would be good if you could look into the currenty ANT
> scripts that do the whole business of generating the HTML files and
> converting the ontologies.

I will try. Never used ant before but I will manage. :)

> The current layout is not because we like chaos, but because our current
> set of ANT scripts works with that setup and it was too hard to change
> the script (it was easier to just put all ontologies into the same
> folder and then tweak the ant script)

sure. I know how this works. Stuff grows.

> In general, I do not like the smell of release/draft folders, but I
> think its ok.
> I think each ontology should be in its own folder and some readme.txt
> should show the status, but its also fine the way with superfolders. but

I thought about that, too. But a folder structure seems cleaner to me. You can 
get all stable ones by simply checking out that folder. It is also simpler for 
release scripts, not to mention a human trying to understand the structure.

> we should not try to classify them further using folder strucutres, this
> will end up in sucking, rather use the wiki to guide people around.
>
> The W3C way is something like
> ...2009/06/ndo-draft  .... then
> ...2006/08/ndo-draft  ... then
> ...tr/ndo

I doubt we need this. The year is not really interesting IMHO, it is in the 
svn metadata anyway.

> we should use SVN tags to mark releases and otherwise keep the files
> always in the same folder, its much more convenient, but also here I am
> open for ideas.

yes, svn tags for releases.

> about TRIG: (I would like N3, see below)
> this is fine, we stopped using protégé for ontology development some
> time ago, because as we are doing a standardization process, the SVN
> logs are very very very important to verify what chnages have been done,
> and a visual ontology editor sometimes reformats the whole file, which
> makes it impossible to verify what has been changed by whom and why, so
> I am in favor for TRIG and text files.
> Could someone write this down on our OntologyMaintenance page?
>
> there is only one problem - there is a lack of online tools [1] for
> checking/validating/converting trig, this sucks. For the sake of keeping
> a sane mind, and being quick while hacking,
> I would propose to use N3 instead because there is more tool support for
> it.
>
> [1]
> http://rdfabout.com/demo/validator/index.xpd
> http://www.mindswap.org/2002/rdfconvert/
> -> these tools, which I daily use when cheking ontologies, do not
> support trig.
> Trig=bad
> n3=good

hm, but wouldn't that again mean to have two files: the data graph and the 
metadata graph? I also wanted to avoid that. The other possibility would be to 
auto-generate the metadata from the release date and maybe the last svn 
change, the svn commiters and a metadata file.

Cheers,
Sebastian