stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antonio David Perez Morales <>
Subject Re: Camel integration (was : Re: Community bonding period started)
Date Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:53:47 GMT
Hi people

Continuing with the project work , I have implemented some improvements to
chain and engine components to allow defining enhancer properties (like
enhancer.engines.dereference.ldpath) in the route component definition.
Example :
As said in previous mails, the engines and chains have to be configured
through Felix console.

Regarding the last discussion about a new kind of ContentHub back to
Stanbol as an use case for the workflow integration, I have successfully
created a custom Camel processor to create the document with the content
and enhancement metadata in order to be sent to Solr. It takes the LDPath
expression (configured in the dereference engine component via
enhancer.engines.dereference.ldpath query parameter or camel component
parameter) to extract the metadata to be indexed. So using a route like
we can have new indexed documents in Solr containing the text and the
extracted enhancement metadata in order to be use in semantic searchs in
the external Solr. Of course, the Solr schema needs to be created in the
remote Solr beforehand. It is only a brief proof of concept of such

My idea is to use an external Solr to store the content and semantic
metadata for semantic search purposes, as opposite of the old ContentHub
which was using an internal SolrYard, creating the schema from the
configured LDPath expression.

The next step in this task will be create a custom StanbolSolr component,
able to perform the functionality of the previous processor and Solr, but
allowing configuring the LDPath, fields and properties to be extracted and
put as metadata in the new Solr document. These properties will be applied
to the ContentItem metadata, so if an entity dereference engine is
configured with a different LDPath expression or fields, maybe the
properties to be extracted will not exist.
As future improvement of this component, we could add a new conf parameter
specifying a configured dereference engine to be used before applying the

Stay tuned for further advances.

As always if you have any questions or comments, please drop some lines


PS: The example routes used are very simple and lineals, but for some
scenarios, parallel executions of engines, multicast, aggregator, etc
(supported by camel) could be used to speed up the enhancement process.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Antonio David Perez Morales <> wrote:

> Hi Rafa and all
> In my opinion, the Content Hub back in Stanbol for Semantic Search
> capabilities is a great use case to be implemented.
> Waiting for Florent's opinion, I could start first only with Solr (whose
> component already exists in Camel but it needs to be adapted like the
> ActiveMQ component) and creating a custom transformer bean for Camel to
> have the original Content Hub. After that, we could think to create the
> SIREn component and the new transformer for it, giving the users the
> possibility of use one of them.
> What do you think? Is It an interesting use case for the Camel integration
> application?
> Regards
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Rafa Haro <> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> El 01/07/14 10:20, Antonio David Perez Morales escribió:
>>  Hi all
>>> Continuing with the project, I have managed successfully the integration
>>> of
>>> activemq camel component (and also jms) into the Stanbol Camel
>>> integration.
>>> This has been a hard task due to the dependencies needed by the component
>>> and also due to the fact that we had to provide an activemq component
>>> configurable through Felix web console.
>>> With this addition, we are in the position to integrate business logic
>>> into
>>> Stanbol routes through a message service provided by activemq (jms).
>> Nice Antonio, let's see is someone has an interesting use case to
>> implement in this context.
>>> As a first test, I have deployed a route which consumes messages
>>> (content)
>>> from an activemq queue, enhance them using the default chain and then
>>> write
>>> the result into a file. It's a simple test but it works quite well. In
>>> this
>>> case, Stanbol is working in a standalone mode, that is to say, we don't
>>> have to explicitly call Stanbol to enhance content but Stanbol is
>>> triggered
>>> based on some external events (a new queue message)
>>> As indicated in the previous mail, I still have some pending things to be
>>> done (because I couldn't do them last week) but in order to go forward
>>> with
>>> the project I ask you for some interesting use cases where to apply the
>>> new
>>> workflow component in order to give added value to it and also in order
>>> to
>>> develop and provide more workflow (camel) components useful for those and
>>> other use cases.
>> Awaiting for the community feedback and also for Florent's opinion
>> regarding the rest of the project, as I have expressed in recent emails,
>> I'm eager to see the Content Hub back in Stanbol. And this is because of,
>> from the point of view of the use of Stanbol in the enterprise, Semantic
>> Search is one of the most common use cases. So, to have an enterprise
>> search backend as the last component of a processing route in any
>> architecture where stanbol could be plugged sounds key for me. In recent
>> discussions at the Stanbol IRC channel, we have been analysing Siren (
>>, a Lucene/Solr extension which major
>> advantage is the possibility to index tree structures, allowing then to
>> index structured data without losing full text search capabilities. To
>> refactor old ContentHub component to use Siren is out of scope of this
>> project but, in my opinion, an interesting use case could be to develop a
>> Siren Camel Component and a transformer from ContentItem to Siren Object or
>> whatever and integrate both in Stanbol.
>> What do you guys think?
>> Cheers,
>> Rafa
>>> Regards
>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>>> wrote:
>>>  Hi Stanbolers
>>>> The GSoC 2014 midterm is here and I want to give you a summary of the
>>>> work
>>>> already done so far:
>>>> - Adapted previous Camel integration PoC done by Florent into Stanbol
>>>> 1.0
>>>> version.
>>>> - Improved EngineComponent used by Camel to execute Enhancement Engines
>>>> (configured through Stanbol web console as usual) using the engine://
>>>> uri
>>>> scheme in routes.
>>>> - Created ChainComponent used by Camel to execute Enhancement Chains
>>>> using
>>>> the chain:// uri scheme in routes (both Camel components are provided as
>>>> OSGI components, so the uri scheme can be changed through the Stanbol
>>>> web
>>>> console)
>>>> - Created a custom artifact for Apache Felix Fileinstall in order to be
>>>> able to install routes defined in Camel Spring XML DSL placing a route
>>>> file
>>>> (with 'route' extension) in the stanbol/fileinstall directory
>>>> - Created a custom archetype to ease the development of bundles
>>>> containing
>>>> route definitions in Java DSL. The archetype generates a class extending
>>>> 'RouteBuilder' which creates a default Camel direct endpoint used by
>>>> other
>>>> Stanbol Workflow components to execute the route.
>>>> - Created a first version of Workflow API, which contains different OSGI
>>>> components which allow registering Camel components/routes,
>>>> start/stop/execute routes, add/remove components used in routes, etc.
>>>> - REST endpoint is provided to test the execution of routes using REST
>>>> requests (/flow/{routeId} )
>>>> - Modified the PoC full launcher to use all the new bundles to support
>>>> the
>>>> workflow feature.
>>>> - Installed JBoss developer studio which comes with Camel support in
>>>> order
>>>> to create routes in a visual way with the possibility to be exported as
>>>> Spring XML DSL format
>>>> Some pending things I will try to do during this week:
>>>> - Improve the web package to create the needed endpoints to query the
>>>> registered routes, registered camel components, etc
>>>> - Improve the web package to remove classes copied from Stanbol jersey
>>>> module used for testing
>>>> - Update files in the repository with all the new information
>>>> - Document the installation and configuration of JBoss developer studio
>>>> for Camel routes creation
>>>> - Create all the JIRA issued related to the work already done
>>>> For the second part of the project, I would like to read some comments
>>>> about interesting use cases in order to develop the needed Stanbol and
>>>> Camel components to support them.
>>>> If you have any comment, please drop some lines in order to discuss the
>>>> new things to be done.
>>>> Regards
>>>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>  Hi guys
>>>>> Continuing with the project, and as part of the refactoring/new
>>>>> architecture I have started to modify some workflow components in
>>>>> order to
>>>>> create a better API and architecture based on OSGI components. As a
>>>>> first
>>>>> step and in order to have the same behavior than the current one
>>>>> (regarding
>>>>> enhancement process), a chain component has been created to simulate
>>>>> the
>>>>> chain behaviour. This new component uses internally the ChainManager
>>>>> and
>>>>> EnhancementJobManager component to perform the business logic. This
>>>>> way, a
>>>>> new protocol 'chain' can be used in the routes deployed in Stanbol. The
>>>>> chains are configured in the same way, using Stanbol admin console.
>>>>> Now, we can combine single engine executions with chains executions in
>>>>> routes deployed in Stanbol using the alternatives described in previous
>>>>> mails and in the issue [1]. Both engines and chains are configured
>>>>> through
>>>>> Stanbol admin console. You can see the refactoring advances in [2] (a
>>>>> branch used for refactoring the current PoC of Workflow in Stanbol
>>>>> 1.0). Of
>>>>> course, the Camel EIP and other Camel components can be used in the
>>>>> deployed routes as well.
>>>>> With the new Camel routes support, we can have a Stanbol running and
>>>>> enhancing content without receiving any HTTP request to start the
>>>>> enhancement process, because the routes can be triggered by external
>>>>> events
>>>>> ocurred in a queue, database, etc. Moreover the semantic lifting
>>>>> process
>>>>> can be splitted and merged with some application steps, so the issue
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> requesting asynchronous call support for enhancement could be solved.
>>>>> Anyway, if some of you have any suggestions for new components to be
>>>>> deployed for the second part of the project, or another kind of
>>>>> suggestion,
>>>>> please drop here some lines to continue with the discussion.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> workflow/tree/refactoring
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>  Hi people
>>>>>> As part of the GSoC project for the midterm and according to the
>>>>>> [1], a custom Apache Felix Fileinstall artifact has been created
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to deploy Camel routes defined in XML (Spring DSL) placing a file
>>>>>> .route extension in a configured directory (like stanbol/fileinstall
>>>>>> directory). Moreover since this artifact depends on Fileinstall
>>>>>> bundle, the
>>>>>> created launcher has been modified to have that bundle in the OSGI
>>>>>> context
>>>>>> by default.
>>>>>> So, once the current Camel integration POC has been integrated in
>>>>>> Stanbol 1.0 and extended to support the deployment of routes defined
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> Java DSL (through bundles) and XML (route files), the next step will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> thinking and redesigning the current architecture trying to avoid
>>>>>> duplicated code and providing a more extendable and easy to use
>>>>>> Workflow
>>>>>> API, because with the current integration only direct routes can
>>>>>> triggered using REST API which means that the defined routes must
>>>>>> configured properly using a direct endpoint consumer. Anyway, routes
>>>>>> starting in some other way like timers are triggered directly in
>>>>>> deployment, so this has to be taken into account for the new API
>>>>>> REST
>>>>>> API).
>>>>>> In parallel and for the second part, new Stanbol Camel components
>>>>>> be developed in order to be used in new routes. So if any of you
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> cases for this involving Stanbol components, please drop some lines
>>>>>> here in
>>>>>> order to prioritize the Stanbol Camel components to be developed.
>>>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales <
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>  Hi stanbolers
>>>>>>> As part of the issue [1] , I have created a maven archetype useful
>>>>>>> generate Camel routes in Java DSL.
>>>>>>> The archetype generates a Java project with all the dependencies
>>>>>>> one Java class with a method which has to be filled. In this
>>>>>>> Camel
>>>>>>> Java DSL syntax is used to create the route.
>>>>>>> By default and as a first approach, the class will use the route
>>>>>>> given during the project creation to enable a Camel direct endpoint
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> such name.
>>>>>>> The code of the first archetype version can be found at [2].
>>>>>>> The next task will be providing a Felix custom artifact to be
able to
>>>>>>> deploy XML-based routes in Stanbol, placing a custom file in
>>>>>>> Stanbol
>>>>>>> datafiles directory.
>>>>>>> After that, it will be time to think and redesign the architecture
>>>>>>> integrate Camel workflows inside Stanbol in a better way, more
>>>>>>> configurable
>>>>>>> and extendable.
>>>>>>> Comments and suggestions are more than welcome
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>  Hi all
>>>>>>>> After a hard fight this week, I managed to get it work the
>>>>>>>> proof of concept code in the Stanbol 1.0 branch [1]
>>>>>>>> The code is uploaded in my github account [3]. As I said
in a
>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>> mail, I prefer to do it separately and after the project,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> developed code into a Stanbol branch.
>>>>>>>> The 1.0.0 version has some changes in how the Jersey endpoints
>>>>>>>> registered and also new classes and packages, so it was not
>>>>>>>> trivial task
>>>>>>>> to make work the current proof of concept. Moreover I don't
like to
>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>> copy and paste code and make the needed changes. I always
want to
>>>>>>>> understand how the things work and how they are developed
in order
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> able to change/modify them or develop new code around them.
>>>>>>>> The steps done to achieve it have been the following:
>>>>>>>> - Updated pom files to the Stanbol 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT version
>>>>>>>> - Updated bundle levels in bundlelist package to fit the
Stanbol 1.0
>>>>>>>> version levels
>>>>>>>> - Adapted cameljobmanager package code to Stanbol 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
>>>>>>>> classes and using Java OSGI annotations instead of SCR annotations
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> Javadoc
>>>>>>>> - Updated flow web package to Stanbol 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT classes
>>>>>>>> modified needed resources
>>>>>>>> - Added Java OSGI annotations to the route (WeightedChain)
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> SCR annotations in javadoc
>>>>>>>> - Updated launcher to use the 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT packages and
>>>>>>>> bundles
>>>>>>>> So now, the http://localhost:8080/flow endpoint will use
the only
>>>>>>>> Camel route (defined by WeightedChain) to call all the registered
>>>>>>>> Enhancement Engines (ordered by EnhancementEngine order property).
>>>>>>>> For testing purposes, the /flow/{flowName} has been removed,
>>>>>>>> all this code needs to be re-designed and re-implemented
so I only
>>>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>>>> to make it work to have a first (simple) integration in Stanbol
>>>>>>>> 1.0. This
>>>>>>>> functionality will be added again to trigger custom routes
once the
>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>> step (defined below) is developed.
>>>>>>>> The next step [2] will be support to write and configure
routes in
>>>>>>>> XML
>>>>>>>> format, putting the file in datafiles in order to be loaded
by a
>>>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>>> custom artifact (as Rupert pointed out in a previous mail)
>>>>>>>> create a
>>>>>>>> Maven archetype to create bundles defining routes which will
>>>>>>>> loaded
>>>>>>>> using the Felix bundle tab. If necessary, as we talked in
>>>>>>>> messages, a REST endpoint receiving routes in XML can be
>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>> alternative to the first approach. This is my objective for
>>>>>>>> midterm.
>>>>>>>> After the midterm, the new Stanbol components for Apache
Camel will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> developed and also the new architecture for Camel in Stanbol.
>>>>>>>> Comments on this and for use cases for Stanbol Camel components
>>>>>>>> more than welcome.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Antonio David Perez Morales
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  Hi people
>>>>>>>>> I have already started to work on [1] to integrate current
>>>>>>>>> Florent's
>>>>>>>>> code into Stanbol 1.0.
>>>>>>>>> As a first approach, only changing the dependency versions
to new
>>>>>>>>> Stanbol 1.0, many issues have arisen:
>>>>>>>>>   - Deprecated use of classes
>>>>>>>>>   - Classes which have changed from package
>>>>>>>>>   - Some classes not necessary now
>>>>>>>>>   - Classes not used which were causing conflicts
>>>>>>>>>   - ...
>>>>>>>>> So now I'm trying to resolve all these problems to replicate
>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> behavior from 0.9 into 1.0. I will upload the code to
a Github
>>>>>>>>> repository
>>>>>>>>> in my account (which will be pushed later into a Stanbol
>>>>>>>>> after the
>>>>>>>>> project) in order to track the advances.
>>>>>>>>> Once I can resolve all these problems, I will take a
look to the
>>>>>>>>> Felix Custom Artifacts poiinted out by Rupert in a previous
>>>>>>>>> message to find
>>>>>>>>> out the best way to deploy (and manage) route configurations
>>>>>>>>> artifacts, watchservice java, rest endpoint to receive
xml routes,
>>>>>>>>> etc).
>>>>>>>>> Comments on this and future tasks are more than welcome.
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>   On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Rafa Haro <>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  Hi Rupert, Florent and Antonio
>>>>>>>>>> El 27/05/14 08:51, Rupert Westenthaler escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>   As the result of Enhancement Routes is content
+ metadata I can
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> see what you want to "store" in the Entityhub
that is about
>>>>>>>>>>> managing
>>>>>>>>>>> Entities.
>>>>>>>>>>>   >  - entityhub: To query/update the entityhub
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe. If you can come up with a good use case
>>>>>>>>>>>   >  - contenthub: To develop a new content-hub
>>>>>>>>>>> chain/engine
>>>>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and solr/elasticsearch/whatever component
(solr and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elasticsearch
>>>>>>>>>>>> component
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already exist in Camel)
>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO implementing a new Contenthub like component
is outside the
>>>>>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>>>>>> of this GSoC project. However If there is already
>>>>>>>>>>> Solr/Elasticsearch
>>>>>>>>>>> component it would be a really useful thing
>>>>>>>>>>>  Regarding this, in my opinion, the use case
of an eventual
>>>>>>>>>> integration with a Content hub is probably one of
the most clear
>>>>>>>>>> for this
>>>>>>>>>> project. I'm not sure if that is what Antonio was
trying to
>>>>>>>>>> explain but,
>>>>>>>>>> with a single route using as last endpoint Solr or
any other
>>>>>>>>>> backend
>>>>>>>>>> system, we would be almost cloning the same functionality
>>>>>>>>>> the previous
>>>>>>>>>> ContentHub implementation (Stanbol 0.12). Entities
could be
>>>>>>>>>> dereferenced
>>>>>>>>>> using the EntityHub before storing the content along
with the
>>>>>>>>>> metadata,
>>>>>>>>>> which is the point of integration of the EntityHub
in such use
>>>>>>>>>> case. And
>>>>>>>>>> even most interesting, now with the integration of
>>>>>>>>>> contributed by
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert, it would be possible to use a whole graph
>>>>>>>>>> dereferencing, so
>>>>>>>>>> "simply" routing components like Enhancer->Marmotta->Solr
>>>>>>>>>> to me like
>>>>>>>>>> an interesting use case.
>>>>>>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Rafa


This message should be regarded as confidential. If you have received this 
email in error please notify the sender and destroy it immediately. 
Statements of intent shall only become binding when confirmed in hard copy 
by an authorised signatory.

Zaizi Ltd is registered in England and Wales with the registration number 
6440931. The Registered Office is Brook House, 229 Shepherds Bush Road, 
London W6 7AN. 

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message