- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:12:39 -0800
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <C8230825-9F02-4000-A2E8-5C402EED396E@lbl.gov>
copying the dwbp list on this thread, in case anyone would like to see where we are with the versioning BPs. -AG -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 510-495-2935 On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br> wrote: > Cool! > > I think our thread is going well. > It would be nice share it with the whole group? > If so, how can we do that, just to copy dwbp-mail on this thread or to write a new mail describing the main topics discussed? > > Newton > > Em 14/01/2015, à(s) 23:05, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> escreveu: > >> +1 from me! >> -- >> Annette Greiner >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> 510-495-2935 >> >> On Jan 14, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br> wrote: >> >>> Ops, I haven’t sent the link referencing SchemaVer [1]. >>> >>> About the number versioning, I liked the way proposed in SchemaVer [2]: >>> >>> Given a version number MODEL-REVISION-ADDITION, increment the: >>> >>> MODEL when you make a breaking schema change which will prevent interaction with any historical data >>> REVISION when you make a schema change which may prevent interaction with some historical data >>> ADDITION when you make a schema change that is compatible with all historical data >>> Syntactically this feels similar to SemVer - but as you can see from the increment rules, the semantics of each element are very different from SemVer. >>> >>> Is it ok if we propose to use it? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Newton >>> >>> [1]: http://snowplowanalytics.com/blog/2014/05/13/introducing-schemaver-for-semantic-versioning-of-schemas/ >>> [2]: http://snowplowanalytics.com/blog/2014/05/13/introducing-schemaver-for-semantic-versioning-of-schemas/#schemaver >>> >>> >>> >>> Em 14/01/2015, à(s) 19:10, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> escreveu: >>> >>>> Oh, that is awesome. I was initially thinking about trying to use SemVer, but of course it didn’t really makes sense. >>>> p.s., I am generally available via gchat (annettegreiner@gmail.com) or Skype (annette.greiner.1) with some advance warning. >>>> -- >>>> Annette Greiner >>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >>>> 510-495-2935 >>>> >>>> On Jan 14, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Annette, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your contribution! It is a big and nice work! >>>>> >>>>> I’ve one just comment about the first BP (Best Practice x: Provide Versioning Information) that you wrote. >>>>> I would like to suggest to change the possible approach for implementation, where you have suggested to use numbers for version, to use SchemaVersion [1] format for version numbers. >>>>> >>>>> I’m writing a BP where I recommend to use the SchemaVer. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think about this? >>>>> >>>>> Newton >>>>> >>>>> PS: Do you use some kind of instant messaging, such as GTalk or Skype, because it would be easier and faster to talk about some small changes using it. >>>>> I use both (newtoncalegari@gmail.com and Skype: newtoncalegari), if some of you want to add me to make easier to talk, feel free to do that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Em 14/01/2015, à(s) 17:22, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a start for the versioning best practices, enclosed in a Word file. >>>>>> -Annette >>>>>> <DataVersionBP.docx> >>>>>> On Jan 9, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hoi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we need a use-case for versioning I could contribute one about classification schemes. I've been working a bit with the people from of the UDC on this issue. So far they produced http://udcdata.info/ which is a Linked Open Data export on of one version of the UDC summary. They are now looking into exporting the entire UDC scheme and all its past 17 revisions (one per year) that are digitally available right now. The challenge there is that users must have a version-less URI to point to. They should also be given the opportunity to point to a specific revision of a given resource when needed. They also need to be able to mint URIs that don't exist and get them to de-reference but that's a different issue... :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far we looked into taking advantage of the split between unique identifiers for resources and identifiers for their descriptions + the redirect mechanism to implement something such as "eg:id/22" that points to "eg:data/MRF10/22" with a "latest by default policy" or "eg:data/MRF02/22" when a query such as "eg:22?rev=02" is received. To let users point to specific time-stamped resources without having to use a GET parameter we thought about replacing the "id" by the version number "eg:02/22". For this to work the URI scheme of the resources would include a path element that can be replaced by a timestamp, something to be described as part of the metadata of the dataset (in this case the "id" to be replaced by the version). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 January 2015 at 18:38, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote: >>>>>>> Writing introductions before content feels backward to me. It’s generally much easier to write an intro once you know what the content will be, and then you don’t have to worry about whether the assumptions you made still hold true. >>>>>>> -Annette >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Annette Greiner >>>>>>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >>>>>>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >>>>>>> 510-495-2935 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Netwon, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anette, thank you for sharing your thoughts. >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’m wondering how can we achieve the end of this subtask. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So am I :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, what I suggest for us is to get the Requirements related to Versioning topic. >>>>>>>> Maybe these two UCs [2][3] from the 2nd Round could be useful for this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is my opinion that both of these use cases seem very worthy of our focus within the scope of this effort. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lewis, about the scope, I guess our first goal is to have a description/introduction of the Data Versioning section. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you point me to the placeholder for this section? I am failing to find it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And we can discuss on tomorrow call about the BPs, because we don’t have yet requirements for Data Versioning to propose new ones. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think about it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes it sounds great >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Onderzoeker >>>>>>> +31(0)6 14576494 >>>>>>> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 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 | info@dans.knaw.nl | www.dans.knaw.nl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web! >>>>>>> http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> e-Humanities Group (KNAW) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 01:13:36 UTC