RE: Update on versioning for Monday?

Rob are you suggesting that we revisit the wording of this requirement as well?

ixchel

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.

Rob


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>