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: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:37:10 +0100
To: 'Christophe Guéret' <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, 'Bernadette Farias Lóscio' <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: "'Ghislain Atemezing'" <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>, <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001001d00b08$08d16950$1a743bf0$@makxdekkers.com>
As I see it, there might be a difference with respect to granularity.


In general, collections of terms, like ontologies, controlled vocabularies or code lists, have two levels of identification: (1) the identifier for the collection of terms and (2) identifiers for the individual terms. In many cases that I have seen, people version the collection so you might have URIs


http://example.org/terms/1.1/ etc,

but the individual terms would not be versioned so with URIs



These individual terms could be part of multiple versions of the collection.


For more general datasets, e.g. sensor data or budget figures, there might not be a need to identify its parts, e.g. individual data points, so there you only have to version the dataset as a whole.


But if you’re building a dataset as a collection of items (e.g. an anthology CD that contains recordings from previous albums), then you can have the same situation as with the ontologies above: the anthology would have its own URI, a new version of the anthology with additional songs would be versioned (e.g. the 2014 anthology as opposed to the 2002 anthology), but you would not assign two URIs to the same song that appears on both anthologies.






From: Christophe Guéret [mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl] 
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 1:12 PM
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Cc: Ghislain Atemezing; public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ISSUE-69: Do we include versioning in the bp doc? currently there are no use cases for it



Do we really need to make the difference between data/metadata and datasets/vocabularies to speak about versioning ?

IMHO it would be best to just focus on versioning resource identifiers. Then a requirement on the design of identifiers to ensure they are version-proof would be sufficient.



On 28 November 2014 at 13:00, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br <mailto:bfl@cin.ufpe.br> > wrote:

Hello Ghislain,


Thanks for adding one more use case and also for this dicussion about versioning!


In my opinion, versioning metadata should be provided both for datasets and vocabularies (ontologies). In the same way, it is important to have best practices for URI design that helps to deal with these different versions.


However, it is not clear for me if the new requirement *R-VersionURIDesign*: “Data should have a canonical way to design URIs for different snapshot of the dataset.”  concerns versions of both (datasets and vocabularies). 





2014-11-27 11:18 GMT-03:00 Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr <mailto:auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> >:


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


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.


[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 <mailto:auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>  & ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com <mailto:ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com> 
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8178 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%20-%209300%208178> 
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%20-%209000%208200> 
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~atemezin



Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Centro de Informática
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil


+31(0)6 14576494
christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl <mailto:christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> 


Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)

DANS bevordert duurzame toegang tot digitale onderzoeksgegevens. Kijk op  <http://www.dans.knaw.nl> www.dans.knaw.nl voor meer informatie. DANS is een instituut van KNAW en NWO.


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 |  <mailto:info@dans.kn> info@dans.knaw.nl | www.dans.knaw.nl <http://www.dans.knaw.nl> 


Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web!

e-Humanities Group (KNAW)
Received on Friday, 28 November 2014 12:37:44 UTC

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