[Xesam] oscaf/xesam ontology merge: who is going to maintain/edit what?

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2009/6/9 Urho Konttori <urho.konttori at nokia.com>:
> ext Evgeny Egorochkin wrote:
>> On 9 июня 2009 04:52:06 Antoni Mylka wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Xesamies (Xesams, Xesamians, is there an accepted form? ),
>>>
>>
>> Xesamies sounds good :)
>>
>>
>>> I volunteer for:
>>>  - moving the current ontology source files to whatever repository is
>>>    chosen, both the trunk and the 8 'revisions' already 'released'
>>>  - dropping the legacy constraint that the ontologies must be editable
>>>    in Protege, which didn't work anyway, and make the protege->NRL
>>>    conversion step unnecessary
>>>  - moving the doc generator to whatever repository is chosen
>>>  - setting up the "build" so that with a single call to 'ant' the
>>>    documentation will be regenerated and all example files will be
>>>    validated against the current version of the ontology
>>>  - spearheading the effort to get some export of the trac history from
>>>    the nepomuk trac and importing it to whatever issue tracker is chosen
>>>    (I personally favour trac, dunno how difficult it would be to
>>>    import trac issues to bugzilla - all kinds of comments welcome).
>>>  - maintaining the 'build' code infrastructure
>>>  - helping all other ontology maintainers as far as I can
>>>  - maintaining all the ontology parts for which no separate maintainer
>>>    steps up. I've been reading through the thread and it seems there
>>>    were two people willing to take on the maintenance duties.
>>>    NRL -
>>>    NAO -
>>>    NIE -
>>>    NFO - Ivan Frade
>>>    NMO - Roberto Guido
>>>    NCO -
>>>    NCAL -
>>>    NEXIF -
>>>    NID3 -
>>>
>>> Dunno if the original authors of NRL (as stated at [7]) will want to get
>>> involved with it now. It seems that the number of volunteers is far from
>>> astonishing ATM :)
>>>
>>
>> I can afford to be a backup maintainer for all this. As long as people are
>> willing to write code, I'll find the time to tell them what to do^H^H^H^H^H
>> maintain ontologies :)
>>
>> This can work for awhile. More visibility and synergetic effects will fix this
>> over time.
>
> I can be maintainer of NMM once we agree to include that in the official
> ontologies (and drop the NID3 and possibly even NEXIF while doing so).
> Also, by replacing the nid3, and nexif, we have 1 less ontology to get a
> maintainer for ;).
>
> Pros:
> I designed that together with Evgeny Egorochkin and Mikael Ottela.
> NMM is still not completely sanity tested and may still need quite a few
> changes, so I would be a good person to do that.
>
> Cons:
> Quite busy until next autumn.

I must admit that it feels a bit like stealing to offer maintainership
of something I didn't develop myself, but here goes anyway :-)

I could probably take NAO - or to be honest I have great interest in
the particular subject of annotations and I believe that the NAO could
be so much more powerful. As a side note I must also admit that I've
found that it doesn't meet my needs for how we plan to use Gnome
Zeitgeist. More or that at a later time...

I don't have a lot of time, but NAO is small (and I believe it should
stay that way) so it might work out.

-- 
Cheers,
Mikkel