Re: Intending to take over RDF package

Hi Frederico, > > - PEAR's RDF package is really an early fork of rdfapi > > - I worked on rdfapi's SparqlEngine as part of my diploma thesis. > > rdfapi itself is currently not maintained, but in a really better > > shape than PEAR's rdf package. There is a PHP5 spinoff of rdfapi > > going on as part of OntoWiki [1] called erfurt. > > > > So the question is really what your plans are with the package. > > In my opinion it would be good to have an updated and feature rich RDF > package at PEAR. After stating that the current RDF package was out of > date and asking for maintenance, i was thinking of updating it to > 0.9.6, the last upstream version, and keep maintaining it for > possible bugs or new release updates. > > I don't know if it is worth the effort or there are better > alternatives, what do you think? I personally know that is is a huge task - basically, PEAR's RDF package is a pearified version of rdfapi. Keeping up to date means taking upstream patches and applying them to our own code. This is double work that does not gain anything in my eyes. The for me best way is to go to the rdfapi project and try to get things moving over there. For example, setting up a channel server, geting the code in there PEAR CS compliant - if Chris wants that. But working on PEAR's RDF package is probably a dead end. -- Regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Weiske -= Geeking around in the name of science since 1982 =-

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc