W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Re: ISSUE-69: Do we include versioning in the bp doc? currently there are no use cases for it

From: Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:35:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CABP9CAFUVYh=jxC8bW44SVgttKAcaETQJyd_dPhQgiRbWtFMZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
CC: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ghislain,

This is interesting. I particularly like the way the BBC tackled the issue
of keeping versions while not having them explicit in the concepts URIs.

The UDC consortium are working on doing a Web data version of the MRF and
also have some issues with versioning as the MRF is revised every year. So
far they solve that by assigning to each concept a unique identifier this
is different that the identifier of the class itself. E.g. - ignoring
namespaces - the concept "(22)" could have an identifier "12345" which will
never be reused for anything else, whereas "(22)" already found many usages
in the past. The problem there is that users annotate their library with
"(22)", not "12345" so there is a mess between the URI identifying the
resource and the one actually used by users. I wonder whether something
along the same line as the BBC case would make sense to them...

We could eventually derive a best practice not to put the version in the
URI but ensure this is documented within each document describing the
concepts at different versions, and eventually in the URI of these
descriptions too.
I would also be interested in relating the topics of versions and
preservation as previous versions of something could be sent to an archive.


On 27 November 2014 at 15:18, Ghislain Atemezing <
auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> wrote:

> Dear Data-web-lovers,
> [ My 2 cents to solve this issue... ]
> > ISSUE-69: Do we include versioning in the bp doc? currently there are no
> use cases for it
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/69
> I guess with the second round of UCs [1], we clearly identify that
> COMSODE's UC falls into versioning issue [2].
> I've just added a new UC regarding BBC's ontologies, available here [3].
> I was looking for a requirement dealing with designing URIs and
> versioning, to (maybe) make use of the COMURI document.
> I've also proposed a new requirement *R-VersionURIDesign*?: “Data should
> have a canonical way to design URIs for different snapshot of the dataset.”
> Maybe I didn't check enough the document to find overlaps with existing
> requirements. If so, please thanks for pointing the right requirement.
> I hope these UCs will motivate the presence of including versioning in
> the bp document.
> Best,
> Ghislain
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Second-Round_Use_Cases
> [2]
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Second-Round_Use_Cases#Dataset_versioning_and_dataset_replication
> [3]
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Second-Round_Use_Cases#BBC_ontology_versioning_and_Metadata
> --
> Ghislain Atemezing
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> Campus SophiaTech
> 450, route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
> e-mail: auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin
> Google+:http://google.com/+GhislainATEMEZING
> Twitter:@gatemezing

+31(0)6 14576494

*Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)*

DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op
www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en

Let op, per 1 januari hebben we een nieuw adres:

DANS | Anna van Saksenlaan 51 | 2593 HW Den Haag | Postbus 93067 | 2509 AB
Den Haag | +31 70 349 44 50 | info@dans.knaw.nl <info@dans.kn> |

*Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!*

*e-Humanities Group (KNAW)*
[image: eHumanities] <http://www.ehumanities.nl/>
Received on Friday, 28 November 2014 11:36:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:28 UTC