- From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 13:03:04 +0200
- To: <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Jacco, Good point that we should look at earlier work. I looked through the use cases at https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/ but there are only a few that explicitly address versioning. Two requirements were identified: https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-VocabVersion: "Vocabularies should include versioning information" https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#R-DataVersion: "If different versions of data exist, data versioning should be provided." In DXWG, we could look a bit more into the requirements to express the possible *relationships* between versions of datasets which apparently DWBP did not do. Makx. -----Original Message----- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen [mailto:Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl] Sent: 06 June 2017 11:41 To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Versioning On 06/06/2017 09:51 AM, Phil Archer wrote: > Taking a standards design angle on this, we have a concept, versioning, that is understood in different ways by different people and in different circumstances. @Phil, I think we can all agree on this. But I'm with Makx, this should not be a reason to stop us from collecting use cases relevant to different versions of versioning... @all: To speed up the versioning use case collection process, would it make sense to look at our use cases in terms of a delta with the ones already collected in [1]? Then the questions could be - which of the version-related use cases collected by #dwbp would be also applicable to #dxwg - are there important use cases missing from #dwbp we would like to add? I briefly skimmed [1] and I think it does a pretty good job in covering the versioning-related requirements I had in mind. Luiz, Makx, what do you think? Jacco [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2017 11:03:40 UTC