Dear Vedrin, All Developers:

Again, thanks for the progress Vedrin / Tobias & all, but my concern on 
the experience of this iteration is still acute - we are doomed to all 
sorts of problems if we do not work with a common goal, agree to 
processes and deadlines and stay with the agreed processes and make 
them.  I think we can forgive digressions - by all of us (including me 
at times!)- this time, but I am very worried that we continue this way.  
This iteration has now gone ca. 3.75 months and has involved all sorts 
of slippages. We can perhaps forgive ourselves for that because of an 
early experience, early API etc., but I am not convinced we will be 
successful unless we mature quickly for next iterations.  So I think it 
is important at our next meeting to have a very open and focused 
discussion on how we are documenting and releasing and testing what we 
do ... and then definitely not ignore that.  So my opinion is that we 
agree for example:
- the iterations are integrated and Use Case driven, and promises on 
documenting and developing against that are kept as best we can
- we should reach iterations that are much closer to 4-6 weeks than 15 weeks
- what we are working to is a succesful OpenTox release not 10 x Org X 
releases
- my agreement to keep development less structured in Rome was maybe (?) 
OK this time but flawed otherwise

If we agree to document a Use Cae OR Web Service Release OR Test Report, 
we are clear on how the process works and we then work that way.

Am I overreacting?  Perhaps ... but what I see worries me, unless we get 
a better handle on structure, integrated releases and soon etc for 
2010.  For example we can have successful independent releases by 
partners and still totally fail on the project visions and principles 
and use cases :(! 

So what is v. important for Iteration 3 is not that we have Org X 
services released from Org X, but that solution Y across Org X+Y+Z... 
OpenTox services works for user A and B....(I understand that individual 
service release was the focus for iteration 1 and 2...but I still would 
prefer to see more connected thinking in place already.)

Saying it one more time in a slightly different way - all that counts in 
such an effort is the common effort of "OpenTox" being successful - then 
all active contributors will be successful. Again if you think I am 
wrong say so... but so far I have often not heard anything very much 
back at all when I take the pulpit on such issues and I am not inclined 
to be a priest preaching to a vacuum.

And finally before I introduce a new role trying to manage this better 
... even more important that we agree on how we proceed in next phase - 
which does not have to be the same as in the "initial exploratory phase".

Barry

Vedrin Jeliazkov wrote:
> Hi Tobias, All,
>
> Many thanks for the update! I've added new automated continuous tests
> for the API 1.1 compliant resources here:
>
> http://ambit.uni-plovdiv.bg/cgi-bin/smokeping.cgi?target=TUM
>
> I've also found and reported two issues here:
>
> http://lxkramer13.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/trac/TUMOpenTox/ticket/53
>
> http://lxkramer13.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/trac/TUMOpenTox/ticket/54
>
> The second one can be of interest to all Java developers, so I'm
> copying it here (credits go to Nina):
>
> - - - - - - - - 8< - - - - - - - -
> The OWL Validator at  http://www.mygrid.org.uk/OWL/Validator reports
> OWL Full for all tested algorithm representations, while OWL-DL is
> expected. The following 3 fixes would hopefully resolve the issues:
>
>
> 1) for object properties, instead of jenaModel.getProperty(..) use
> Property p = jenaModel.getObjectProperty()
>
>
> 2) for data properties, instead of jenaModel.getProperty(..) use
> Property p = jenaModel.getDatatypeProperty(..)
>
>
> 3) for DC (annotation) properties, instead of
> jenaModel.getProperty(..) use
> jenaModel.createAnnotationProperty(DC.title.getURI());
> - - - - - - - - 8< - - - - - - - -
>
> Kind regards,
> Vedrin
>
> 2009/12/18 Tobias Girschick <tobias.girschick at in.tum.de>:
>   
>> Dear Vedrin, All,
>>
>> a first part of the TUM REST Webservices version 1.1 are now available.
>> The number of available services is still low but will increase.
>>
>> You can find the available services under our unstable test URI:
>>
>> http://opentox.informatik.tu-muenchen.de:8080/OpenTox-dev
>>
>> The entry page contains a link to the documentation, as well as an
>> overview of the available methods. This is subject to change, so check
>> back from time to time.
>>
>> Please report all issues to
>>
>> http://lxkramer13.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/trac/TUMOpenTox/report
>>
>> best regards,
>> Tobias
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dipl.-Bioinf. Tobias Girschick
>>
>> Technische Universität München
>> Institut für Informatik
>> Lehrstuhl I12 - Bioinformatik
>> Bolzmannstr. 3
>> 85748 Garching b. München, Germany
>>
>> Room: MI 01.09.042
>> Phone: +49 (89) 289-18002
>> Email: tobias.girschick at in.tum.de
>> Web: http://wwwkramer.in.tum.de/girschick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at opentox.org
>> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
>