Hi all,
I think there are three issues that need to be addressed here:
A) How are we going to name the "Science WG" proposal?
Do we need a distinct IDN for the Science WG like
"org.eclipse.science" or is it only a frame for all participating
projects, see C?
B) Which name should we take for a generic 1d - 3d data
processing and visualization framework?
In my opinion, a separate project called "SciSoft" ->
"org.eclipse.scisoft" would be fine if there are no concerns
regarding trademarks. IHMO, only "org.eclipse.science" would be a
bit too generic.
C) Shall all participating projects change their plug-in names to
"org.eclipse.science"?
I think no. The Science WG will be (only) the top level project. It
will be the umbrella for several distinct subprojects. Hence, each
project shall write an own proposal to migrate its code to the
Eclipse Foundation. All accepted and migrated projects could then be
a part of the Science WG, e.g.:
SciSoft @eclipse (org.eclipse.scisoft)
DAWN -> DAWN @eclipse (org.eclipse.dawn)
SIMA -> SIMA @eclipse (org.eclipse.sima)
Bioclipse -> Bioclipse @eclipse (org.eclipse.bioclipse)
OpenChrom -> ChemClipse @eclipse (org.eclipse.chemclipse) [We
have a trademark on OpenChrom, hence we are going to write a
proposal as ChemClipse]
...
What's your opinion?
Cheers
Philip
Hello,
Yes
this was my thinking too, I thought org.eclipse.science was
not likely to be the project name (?) and
org.eclipse.science-iwg is rather pants so I resorted to
org.eclipse.scisoft. However maybe we could make
org.eclipse.science the project after all? Or would that be
somewhat arrogant to the other science projects under
eclipse?
I
think, but am not entirely sure, that it would be good if we
do choose one we all agree on. The alternative is that we
all submit our own eclipse projects. I think we would likely
get more value from a joint project but it will be harder to
set up and agree on. Which is where the starting small idea
came from.
Matt
Before
everyone gets too committed to this namespace, let's check
with Wayne Beaton. My recollection is that the current
recommendation is that project namespaces be simply
org.eclipse.projectname, and not include the top-level
project.
But
Wayne's the guy who knows :)
+1 from me too for org.eclipse.science.
Jay
On Nov 5, 2013 4:44 PM, "UOMo" <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Just to add, I also feel OK with the
package hierarchy suggestions other than the name of the
project top level;-)
Werner
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM,
<science-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Send science-iwg mailing list
submissions to
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide
Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to
science-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
science-iwg-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
is more specific
than "Re: Contents of science-iwg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Review BoF EclipseCon (Stephan Druskat)
2. Re: Review BoF EclipseCon (Torkild U.
Resheim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:01:44 +0100
From: Stephan Druskat <stephan.druskat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Review BoF EclipseCon
Message-ID: <20131105210144.57790v7t4keb96zk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Hi All,
+1 for org.eclipse.science.*, just because it's
nice and generic and
probably un-trademark-able.
Other than that I like Matt & Philip's
suggestions.
Cheers,
Stephan
--
Stephan Druskat
stephan.druskat@xxxxxxxxxxx
Zitat von UOMo <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Just saw, Scisoft or the ESO (EU Observatory)
software artifact is even
> called "eclipse", too,
http://www.eso.org/sci/software/eclipse/ for
obvious
> reasons, it deals with Solar or Lunar Eclipse
observation, there is no
> evidence of Eclipse software being used, but
that makes the combination of
> "eclipse" and "scisoft" even more irritating.
>
> Especiallly that looks like a very
professional and well-established
> project, even if there may not be a
trademark.
>
> Werner
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for
the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the
intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee
please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not
use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or
attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the
individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or
any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept
liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of
software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the
message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered
in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond
House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot,
Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Philip Wenig
http://www.openchrom.net
https://www.xing.com/profile/Philip_Wenig
http://de.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wenig/2a/4a8/877
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
