Re: How do you go about versioning ?

Hi,
Yes, for a dataset or an information artifact, this would be like a logical inclusion in the end.
However, if you point to is not an information artifact, hashes don't work as well, unfortunately :(
But then, I think we are diverging too much on this list!(apologies)

best,
Andrea

Il giorno 22/set/2014, alle ore 00:16, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Andrea,
> the "range of verifiability" extends so long as the linked resources
> are also trustyuris. You could, of course, cache and hash those linked
> assertions, for posterity.
> 
> 
> m.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Andrea Splendiani
> <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org> wrote:
>> HI,
>> having hashes as part of URIs is very very good, ihmo, for datasets. They are IDs by definition.
>> For other kinds of informations it depends.
>> If I get correctly your proposal, you use hashes that extend to all references (e.g.: they hash the hash...).
>> I wouldn't consider version of references as part the entity (in the general case), for the simple reason that you don't know where to stop.
>> Do you work with Tobias ?
>> 
>> best,
>> Andrea
>> 
>> Il giorno 21/set/2014, alle ore 23:00, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> Martynas,
>>> The Cool URIs proposal does not address versioning (and neither does
>>> most metadata vocabularies), unfortunately.  There's no reason why you
>>> can't create URIs to return information that is known about an object
>>> under some condition (APIs do that all the time). The key is that the
>>> URI persists.
>>> In our TrustyURI proposal [1], we show how to generate HTTP URIs
>>> that are verifiable, immutable, and permanent. Using these, one could
>>> relate a version of data with another, perhaps using
>>> pav:previousVersion [2], as we indicate in the HCLS note on dataset
>>> descriptions. That way, you'd be sure that you're getting back what
>>> you linked to in the first place.
>>> 
>>> m.
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.slideshare.net/TobiasKuhn/trustyuris
>>> [2] http://purl.org/pav/
>>> [3] http://tinyurl.com/mg9ly9c
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Martynas Jusevičius
>>> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>>>> Joachim,
>>>> 
>>>> I think your proposal is in conflict with core Linked Data principle:
>>>> Cool URIs Don't Change.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#cooluris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Martynas
>>>> graphityhq.com
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Joachim Baran <joachim.baran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would reorder the URI as "http://eample/V2/P1234". That way you make it
>>>>> more explicit that you are talking about data set releases, each of which is
>>>>> defined by its own URI prefix. That way you can have two P1234 residing
>>>>> side-by-side even though they might be completely different.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should the version always be part of an URI? I would say yes -- despite
>>>>> seeing your argumentation about the temporal interpretation of URIs that you
>>>>> gave.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kim
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 19 September 2014 08:38, Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm posting here a question I have posted in some other forums.
>>>>>> How do you go about versioning ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I tend to think at the URI as pointing to the endurant, and this leaves to
>>>>>> the "version" the meaning of "what was known/true about an entity at a given
>>>>>> time". The latter is conveniently packed in a graph, whose URIs can be
>>>>>> conveniently linked to the endurant URI.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So http://example/P04637 is the protein URI that returns what is currently
>>>>>> known about this protein.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://example/P04637/V2 is the URI of a version (a set of statements)
>>>>>> that return what is known for http://example/P04637 at a given time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that http://example/P04637/V2 doesn't appear in results (except in
>>>>>> predicates linking different versions, like "replaces")
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Basically I never have an assertion as:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://example/P04637 hasVersion 2, but version is only used to filter
>>>>>> which pack of information is relevant. So if I mix results from different
>>>>>> versions (e.g. quads) I can filter what is relevant and where to me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is this a common way of doing things ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If not, have you thought about it and if you took alternatives, why ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>

Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 22:29:53 UTC