Re: How do you go about versioning ?

Nice.
Why do you need the hasCurrentVersion link, instead of just relying on
redirection ?
The content served should/could anyway be the same of the last version, no?

best,
Andrea

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> We have in PAV 2.3 also added pav:hasCurrentVersion which is the easy
> way to link from an unversioned URI to a versioned URI.
>
> http://purl.org/pav/html#http://purl.org/pav/hasCurrentVersion
>
>
> e.g.
>
> <http://example/P04637> pav:hasCurrentVersion <http://example/P04637/V2> ;
>     pav:version "2" .
> <http://example/P04637/V2>
>     pav:version "2";
>     pav:previousVersion <http://example/P04637/V1> ;
>
>
> Both URIs should return (about) the same representation today - but at
> a later stage, looking up the unversioned URI could have a different
> current version:
>
>
> <http://example/P04637> pav:hasCurrentVersion <http://example/P04637/V3> ;
>     pav:version "3" .
> <http://example/P04637/V3>
>     pav:version "3";
>     pav:previousVersion <http://example/P04637/V2> ;
>
>
> In theory you can have multiple layers of versioning complexity to do
> major/minor/patch - but the above should work for most.
>
>
>
> On 21 September 2014 22:00, Michel Dumontier <michel.dumontier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>