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

RE: Update on versioning for Monday?

From: Faniel,Ixchel <fanielI@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:33:50 +0000
To: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR06MB3548BDA182994CD9578D7C7ECD460@DM5PR06MB3548.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Rob are you suggesting that we revisit the wording of this requirement as well?


From: Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:55 PM
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Update on versioning for Monday?

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<mailto: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<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net

m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600<tel:+1%20510-984-3600>
Received on Monday, 23 October 2017 15:34:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:19 UTC