[Xesam] Desktop ontology svn layout

[Sebastian Trüg]

On Monday 29 June 2009 02:32:45 Leo Sauermann wrote:
> ok, so we agree.
>
> still - use N3 and do two files, trig sucks.

due to missing tool support? 
Two files means having build tools that merge them. These cannot be based on 
java! Thus, we would have to write them. As soon as those tools are in place I 
will happily change to N3. But for now I will stay with trig.

Cheers,
Sebastian

> best
> Leo<
>
> It was Sebastian Trüg who said at the right time 26.06.2009 19:54 the
>
> following words:
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xesam mailing list
> > Xesam at lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam