- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:30:49 -0700
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
I think you and Bernadette are defining superseding and modifying conversely, but I think both cases call for versioning. I would consider the case where a dataset is modified and wholly replaced with the corrected one as a case where versioning is needed. I also consider the case where a dataset is modified and the older version is still available as a case where versioning is needed as well. If you have stored an older version and it presents itself as the exact same thing, it should be the exact same thing. Otherwise, you could reuse a deprecated version without knowing it. -Annette -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 510-495-2935 On Jul 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote: > Annette, > > Good point. > > I was not implying that if data is modified, the old version should *never* > remain available. Maybe a matter of definition: according to my > categorisation, if a publisher modifies data and keeps the old version > available (the one that may have errors, partial data, outdated > information), it falls in the category of superseding. > > The definition of modifying is then "updating but not keeping the old data > available". Sometimes you really want to stop people from accessing and > using data that you know is wrong. > > Makx. > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov] >> Sent: 27 July 2015 18:20 >> To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com> >> Cc: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>; Data on the Web Best >> Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Versioning >> >> I agree with most of this, but I think that, except for real-time data, >> modifying implies a new version. The question of whether something is >> superseded seems to me orthogonal. If we didn't maintain a "latest > version" >> link for the BP doc, would modifications of it not call for a new version? >> Limiting versioning to things that are wholly replaced suggests that old >> versions should never remain available, which I think is not best > practice. >> -Annette >> >> On Jul 27, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Makx for this text about some relations between datasets. >>> >>>> Do others agree with limiting versioning to the ‘Superseding’ category? >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> And I think we should have a text in our document telling readers that > this >> is our understanding about versioning. >>> >>> But I have a question: what about the other "meanings"? There will be > any >> type of BPs for them? >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Laufer >>> >>> Em segunda-feira, 27 de julho de 2015, Makx Dekkers >> <mail@makxdekkers.com> escreveu: >>> Thanks Bernadette, >>> >>> >>> >>> Good to know that your perspective is that versioning only refers to the >> ‘Superseding’ case. I fully agree with your perspective. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, you make some statements about the other types of changes >> that I don’t agree with. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not agree that ‘Following’ creates different ‘states’ of the same >> dataset. To me, this year’s budget is only related to last year’s budget >> because they are both budgets, but they are not versions of the same > thing. >> They may have the same granularity (e.g. expressed in thousands of > dollars) >> but the structure could be different (e.g. because of organisational or >> regional changes). For me, time series (and spatial series) have nothing > to do >> with versioning. >>> >>> >>> >>> I do also not agree that ‘Adapting’ creates a new state (as in data at a >> particular moment). All adaptations are equally valid and exist in > parallel. To >> me, adaptations are almost in the same category as the different formats >> that DCAT groups as Distributions of a Dataset. >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally, I do I agree that ‘Modifying’ creates a different state and not > a new >> version. In many cases, a publisher might not even bother to keep the old > file >> but would just change the dct:modified date in the metadata. >>> >>> >>> >>> Do others agree with limiting versioning to the ‘Superseding’ category? >>> >>> >>> >>> Makx. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Bernadette Farias Lóscio [mailto:bfl@cin.ufpe.br] >>> Sent: 27 July 2015 13:51 >>> To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> >>> Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp- >> wg@w3.org> >>> Subject: Re: Versioning >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Makx, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for bringing this discussion and clarifying those differences. > IMO this >> kind of distinction is important. However, I am not sure if we should > call >> "versioning" all types of "updates" that you presented. I created the >> following table to help me to visualize these updates in terms of data (or >> content) changes and structure changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> content change >>> >>> structure change >>> >>> >>> >>> Superseding >>> >>> yes >>> >>> yes >>> >>> new version >>> >>> Following >>> >>> yes >>> >>> no >>> >>> different spatial/temporal granularity >>> >>> Modifying >>> >>> yes >>> >>> no >>> >>> the data may have been updated or data may have been added >>> >>> Adapting >>> >>> yes >>> >>> no >>> >>> content is the same, but in different contexts >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that just in the first case (superseding) there will be a new > version of >> the dataset. In the other cases, there will be different states of the > same >> dataset, where a dataset state means the data in the dataset at a > particular >> moment. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please, let me know if I understood correct and if these ideas make > sense >> to you. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bernadette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Superseding: >>> >>> >>> >>> Content and structure might be very different but the publisher wants > you >> to use the current resource rather than a resource that preceded it. The > URL >> stays the same while the content changes although the broad intention of >> the content stays the same. >>> >>> >>> >>> Examples: >>> >>> • Today’s website (or, more general, web resource) > versus last >> week’s (Memento); >>> >>> • Latest version link, e.g. latest published draft of > BP >> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/. >>> >>> >>> >>> Following: >>> >>> >>> >>> The type of content is the same but it covers a different time period. > Both >> the new and the old data remain valid. (NB: spatial series, e.g. the same > kind >> of data for different regions, are similar to temporal series in many > respects.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Examples: >>> >>> • Sequences of annual budgets; >>> >>> • Daily meteorological observations; >>> >>> • Periodical census data. >>> >>> >>> >>> Modifying: >>> >>> >>> >>> Content, structure and data points are the same to some extent but the >> data may have been updated or data may have been added. >>> >>> >>> >>> Examples: >>> >>> • Correcting errors in values of data points, e.g. resulting > from quality >> control or user feedback; >>> >>> • Adding data points, e.g. if measurements from different > measuring >> devices come in at different times but belong together; >>> >>> • Updating values, e.g. in a Year-to-date file. >>> >>> >>> >>> Adapting: >>> >>> >>> >>> Content and structure are essentially the same but in different > contexts. >>> >>> >>> >>> Examples: >>> >>> • Translations of text fields or labels; >>> >>> • Conversion of co-ordinate system; >>> >>> • Conversions of measures, e.g. ºC to ºF, imperial units to > SI; >>> >>> • Changes in granularity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Should we somehow take such distinctions into account or should we lump >> them all together? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio >>> Centro de Informática >>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> . . . .. . . >>> . . . .. >>> . .. . > >
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 20:32:08 UTC