[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#585740: See our D2R wrapper for UDD that provides RDF for Debian artifacts



Le vendredi 30 juillet 2010 à 17:06 -0400, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Olivier Berger wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:31:55AM +0200, Olivier Berger wrote:
> > > It would be great if bug lists or bug pages could include RDFa
> > > content.
> > > 
> > > Such content could be basic bug description.
> > 
> > For an example of what kind of RDF metadata could be obtained for
> > Debian bugs, here's a server we have setup, which provides some RDF
> > descriptions of bugs out of what is contained in the UDD database :
> > http://testforge.int-evry.fr/d2r-server/
> > 
> 
> Sounds interesting; just for my priority, etc, do you have an idea of
> how this information that you collect is going to be used eventually?
> 

Many ideas ;)

Mainly in providing lists of bugs that relate to same people or same
packages. Such lists could be semantic feeds, to which people and apps
could subscribe in other apps and/or desktop environments (semantic
desktop, etc.)

Imagine such meta-data repositories for many distributions bugtrackers,
where one can query for instance bugs on same sets of packages or bugs
he/she submitted in all these, using the same query language (SPARQL +
same ontologies)

For instance, upstream maintainers could monitor bugs on the packages
for their programs in various downstream package bugtrackers.

Provided that such information is in RDF and using compatible
ontologies, it becomes semantically interoperable... that's the end
goal. 

All this will require using DOAP to describe upstream projects, and a
common ontology for packages, and a common ontology for links betw. bugs
and packages... that's things we're working on, and our D2R server is
meant to help test these.

You may refer to a paper of ours for the general picture : "Weaving a
Semantic Web Across OSS Repositories: Unleashing a New Potential for
Academia and Practice" [0] (preprint available on demand).

> [I'm also interested in trying to make sure that whatever
> inter-bug-tracker formats we settle on exporting are more widely
> supported, as my time to understand and implement format translators
> is relatively limited.]

OSLC-CM V2's ChangeRequest specs [2] could be a valid candidate for
encoding bug properties, either as RDFa or for plain RDF documents.

Here I'm speaking only about the static dimention of OSLC-CM (RDF
descriptions of bugs/change requests), not the REST protocol part,
discussed in #565513.

But OSLC lacks things like relations between bugs and packages, and
that's what we're trying to work on in drafting a compatible ontology
[1].

It's not all completely finished and our demonstrator is here to try and
verify if our ontology choices are compatible with applications.

Of course, when things clarify, it would be great to implement such
extractors on debbugs side directly instead on separate converters ;)

> 
> 
> Don Armstrong

Best regards,

[0] http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/weblog/2010/07/29/weaving-a-semantic-web-across-oss-repositories-unleashing-a-new-potential-for-academia-and-practice-published/
[1] http://sourceforge.net/apps/wordpress/heliosplatform/2010/06/04/first-draft-of-helios_bt-bug-ontology-request-for-comment/
[2] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmSpecificationV2#CM_Resource_Definitions

-- 
Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger@it-sudparis.eu>
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)




Reply to: