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

Re: Update on versioning for Monday?

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:55:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CACfF9LxdL7aEBS9Xxp2f-N=yBJSikP_T24ZoPvMRhVrLOf6T2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
I think I have already done the grouping, but can we hone done the
descriptions to clearer requirements and identify obviously missing things
- either in UC not expressed as requirements already or other UC.

Particular note please on the change of the wording "accepted" from
provision of a version identifier to a identify the type...

6.7.1 Provide a means to identify a version (URI-segment, property etc.).
Clarify relationship to identifier of the subject resource.

Provide a means to indicate the type of version (URI-segment, property,
etc.). Clarify relationship to indicator of the subject resource.

which IMHO leaves dangling the original requirement to provide an
identifier, which I believe is implicit in 5.4 Dataset Versioning
Information [ID4] , where it discusses discovery at least:

"Being able to publish dataset version information in a standard way will
help both producers publishing their data on data catalogues or archiving
data and dataset consumers who want discover new versions of a given
dataset, etc "

 It may be worthwhile revisiting this Use Case and describing the specific
mechanisms we want to support, such as the common expectation of lexical
comparison of version identifiers (before/equal/after) provided using
different forms and semantics by different user communities.


On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 at 06:48 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Hello. I'm wondering if there will be an update on the versioning task
> for Monday, since many people volunteered to work on it but I don't see
> traffic on the list. Is someone willing to take the action to make this
> happen? I think it would be:
> Review versioning items and suggest one or more coherent sets of
> requirements for the group to consider.
> Does that seem to be what we discussed?
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <+1%20510-984-3600>
Received on Sunday, 22 October 2017 20:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 12:28:30 UTC