W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > November 2017

RE: dxwg-ACTION-61: Rewrite 6.6.1 (now 6.2.2)

From: <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:08:05 +0000
To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
CC: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <makx@makxdekkers.com>
Message-ID: <EDFF15E839F79242AA55B1468C63DDA902282F13@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:43 AM
>To: aisaac@few.vu.nl; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>Subject: RE: dxwg-ACTION-61: Rewrite 6.6.1 (now 6.2.2)
>
>+1
>
>It is not possible to have universal hard rules for versions, so our approach to
>versioning must be to enable any and all local strategies, and maybe
>demonstrate patterns for how to record some of the most well-known strategies.

+1, and +1 to the wording proposed by Makx [1].

Andrea

----
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2017Nov/0107.html 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>Sent: Monday, 27 November, 2017 21:01
>To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>Subject: Re: dxwg-ACTION-61: Rewrite 6.6.1 (now 6.2.2)
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm going to stay in line with my previous statements that we should avoid try to
>introduce 'hard' rules for what's a version. This would be too prescriptive. So
>David's wording is an improvement. Actually I'd even suggest to change 'that
>motivate the creation of a new version' into 'that are likely to motivate the
>creation of a new version' so that the final word is left to data publishers
>themselves.
>
>Best,
>
>Antoine
>
>On 27/11/17 08:51, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Dave, I like this wording. The requirement, as it strikes me, sounds
>> like guidance for best practices rather than specific rules. Is that
>> how others see it?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 11/26/17 10:12 AM, david.browning@thomsonreuters.com wrote:
>>> (Given that we're aiming to agree the FPWD of the UCR on Tuesday, I
>>> decided that I'd send this out as an email rather than changing it in
>>> github where I'm something of a nervous neophyte...but learning...)
>>>
>>> The renumbering of the requirements since the recent f-to-f means this action
>now applies to requirement 6.2.2.  The text has already been pared back since
>San Francisco, and is much better but I suggest it's still somewhat misleading.
>>>
>>> Existing: "Provide a conceptual definition of what is considered a version with
>regard to modifications of the respective subject. The definition should provide a
>clear guidance on conditions, type and severity of a resource's update that
>motivate the creation of a new version in scenarios like dataset evolution,
>conversion, translations etc".
>>>
>>> Proposed: "Provide clear guidance on conditions, type and severity of a
>resource's update that motivate the creation of a new version in scenarios such
>as dataset evolution, conversion, translations etc, including how this may assist
>change management processes for consumers (e.g. semantic versioning
>techniques)"
>>>
>>> That ties in better with the content of the use cases (especially what DWPB
>actually says about the lack of any consensus on versioning strategy other than
>in specific limited domains).
>>>
>>>
>>> · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
>>> · · · · David Browning Platform Technology Architect
>>>
>>> Thomson Reuters
>>>
>>> Phone: +41(058) 3065054
>>> Mobile: +41(079) 8126123
>>>
>>> david.browning@thomsonreuters.com
>>> thomsonreuters.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dataset Exchange Working Group Issue Tracker
>>> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
>>> Sent: 15 November 2017 16:57
>>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>>> Subject: dxwg-ACTION-61: Rewrite 6.6.1
>>>
>>> dxwg-ACTION-61: Rewrite 6.6.1
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/actions/61

>>>
>>> Assigned to: David Browning
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rewrite 6.6.1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 08:08:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:56 UTC