search

fusepool / fusepool-vocab

The Fusepool vocabulary
1 stars 0 forks source link

Use fusepool.eu namespace instead of fusepool.info as the latter is for instance data #6

Closed retog closed 10 years ago

retog commented 10 years ago

Using fusepool.info seems to have created some confusion as https://github.com/fusepool/patents-reengineering/commit/e71f04498561f40daeedb63ed72ab2ecbe0dc199 shwos. Aligning naming with other ontology: Use namespace http://fusepool.eu/ontologies/general#

csarven commented 10 years ago

There is no confusion in https://github.com/fusepool/patents-reengineering/commit/e71f04498561f40daeedb63ed72ab2ecbe0dc199 since that precisely addressed https://github.com/fusepool/patents-reengineering/issues/18 . Moreover, the last namespace was using urn:x-temp:/property/, not fusepool.info.

The confusion you are experiencing is probably partly due to the fact that there are discussions in open issues #2 #3 #4 regarding the namespace for Fusepool vocab/ontologies.

Was the use of http://fusepool.eu/ontologies/general# addressed or agreed upon collectively somewhere? Or did that come out of thin air?

csarven commented 10 years ago

Reverted https://github.com/fusepool/patents-reengineering/commit/70787a388c5891f5ddab2a5ed67a5fb1effe1a9e

retog commented 10 years ago

Don't be silly. Please use you're limited time you're working on the project for fixing issues and let the reviewing and reverting to those who are more involved. For example you invested a lot of discussion time on https://github.com/fusepool/patents-reengineering/issues/22 and yet you haven't committed a single line of code bringing as closer to a fix of the issue. Feel free to bring up issues at the standup.

Please revert your revert.

csarven commented 10 years ago

I addressed my issues with your proposal in writing (emails, github) and in person (meetings). The coordinator made the call to proceed with your solution without grasping the technicalities. As I've mentioned in the last group meeting, the issue was closed due to someone making a call (other than me) on how to proceed. That is in no way me resolving the issue because it is out of my hands at that point. It makes no sense to bring it up again because it was closed by someone else.

I am not going to revert my revert because you still didn't address the issues that I've highlighted above. You introduced a piece yet again breaks things simply because you came to it out of thin air. You should either discuss first with the rest of the team, or close related issues that's already there. I thought this was something you figured out by now.