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

Follow up on version-related requirements

From: Jaroslav Pullmann <jaroslav.pullmann@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 23:53:28 +0200
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <6fae-59c04080-3-6eb5cd00@64505127>

   Dear all, 

    today's call left many open questions regarding the "version" group of requirements. 
   Even if their statement is still evolving I am convinced of their relevance, please find my remarks 
   here to some of them:    

   Version subject [RVer1]
   - the original UC restricts scope to Datasets, I think the DCAT group should explicitly decide which resources
     will and in which extent (optional, mandatory) become subject of versioning. This decision should take into
     account the consequences of creating resource versions at each of the levels (Catalog, Dataset, Distribution)

   Version definition [RVer2]
   - it must be the DCAT core defining at least an abstract notion of change and versioning with regard to its resources, 
    esp. identifying dimensions of resource, which changes should result in a new revision. It's particular implementation 
    and rules might differ among profiles and be defined by those "locally", yet in compliance to DCAT's definition.  
    While scenarios might help, versioning should not depend of them to remain a generally useful tool. 

   Version identifier [RVer3]
   - of course, we need one. The question remains, how this version ID relates to URI of original/previous resource and further
   properties of the version model (e.g. URI containing date or semantic version string)

   Version delta [RVer6]
   - (in)formal semantics of the change underlying a new release, specified in terms of abstract definition (@DCAT) and 
   detailed specification (@Profile), e.g. indicating the "type" of change (addition/removal/update of data etc.)

   Version discovery [RVer7]
   - requires the versions to be discoverable and distinguishable, but would a client care? 

   But, I often come back to Makx' pragmatic question - how much versioning support do the DCAT publishers really need 
   and how much do customers really understand (without becoming discouraged by that level of detail). Here the abstract 
   definition from RVer2 should support the understanding of "meaningful" changes in lifecycle of DCAT resources. 
     Best regards

Jaroslav Pullmann
Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
User-Centered Ubiquitous Computing
Schloss Birlinghoven | D-53757 Sankt Augustin | Germany
Phone: +49-2241-143620 | Fax: +49-2241-142146
Received on Monday, 18 September 2017 21:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:38 UTC