- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:47:48 +0100
- To: Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
I've done some exploratory modelling [1] for something very like this recently, based on the PROV ontology [2]. The example is based on recording a series of edits performed using Inkscape on a given document. Key elements of the modelling are: (a) a URI for the document over its lifetime, (b) duri: URIs [3] for the various revisions, (c) prov:specializationOf to relate the individual revisions to the overall document, and (d) prov:wasDerivedFrom to relate the revisions. A key constraint here is that the PROV properties should be applied to generally static resources - they are designed record particular historical facts which are presumed to apply without contextual constraint to the identified entity resource. This is at the moment just exploratoryso I can't claim this is currently "in practice". Also the duri: scheme is not permanently registered, but something similar could be done using http: URIs (and/or Memento [5]?). #g -- [1] http://annalist.atuin.ninebynine.org/annalist/c/artivity_example/d/ (The example here is presented using my work-in-progress Annalist linked data notebook software [4]) [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/ [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-10 [4] https://github.com/gklyne/annalist [5] http://mementoweb.org/about/, http://mementoweb.org/guide/rfc/ On 29/08/2015 23:37, Austin William Wright wrote: > I've come across a problem trying to make it easy to revision documents that > have link relations to each other. I keep document which embed fairly standard > link relations like "up", "tag" and "collection". These documents are stored in > a database alongside metadata, revisioning link relations like > "predecessor-version". > > So the links from one document might look something like this: { ex:foo3 > iana:predecessor-version ex:foo2 ; iana:up ex:top . } > > But what about the resource containing the previous, now-outdated document? { > ex:foo2 predecessor-version ex:foo1 ; up ex:top . } > > Both these documents are saying that "up" is pointing to the same document, > which might be correct. Suppose I use these link relations to build a directory > listing, then my listing will contain old versions of documents that I don't > want to include. How do I avoid this? > > How do you revision documents in practice? > > Austin Wright.
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 08:48:17 UTC