-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Version subject [RVSS] #93
Comments
If I have correctly understood the discussion we had in the sprint call, all first classes dcat citizen can be subject to versioning ( e.g. dataset, distribution, catalogs). Am I wrong? |
As far as I am concerned, you are right |
I agree - and we haven't discussed it much, but we actually need to consider |
@agbeltran If our decision is to allow versioning for all first-class citizens in DCAT, then this would also include |
@makxdekkers and @agbeltran: I agree, For example, both the unqualified relation prov:wasRevisionOf and the qualified counterpart prov:qualifiedRevision works on prov:Entity, which can be any of the first class citizens we were mentioning before. Similarly, does PAV which specialize PROV with specific authorship, curation and digital creation terminology. So in order to deal with this issue, |
+1 from me to not limiting the scope of versioning to some specific classes. Said that, I wonder what actually means versioning a "service": is this about the version of the software and/or service interface? This can be already addressed by indicating the specification to which the service conforms to. In other words, shouldn't versioning be related to content/data only? |
@andrea-perego said
This is the key question, isn't it? We're certainly more interested in content/data than in versions of software but I'm struggling to see how that could work in practice. For example, if I say that I'm using a specific version of a So I don't see how we can limit it just to the content/data... Of course I may be missing a subtlety somewhere that we need to explain. |
@davebrowning , I see your point, but what has changed is the version of software/API used, and this can already be specified via E.g., the following is a service conformant with CSW 2.0.2: a:Service a dcat:DataService ;
dct:conformsTo <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/2.0.2> . If the service is switched to the latest version of the CSW specification, its description would be: a:Service a dcat:DataService ;
dct:conformsTo <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/3.0> . The version here does not concern the service, but the reference specifications: <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw> a dct:Standard , adms:Asset ;
dct:hasVersion <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/2.0.2> ,
<http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/3.0> .
<http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/2.0.2> a dct:Standard , adms:Asset ;
dct:isVersionOf <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw> ;
adms:next <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/3.0> ;
.
<http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/3.0> a dct:Standard , adms:Asset ;
dct:isVersionOf <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw> ;
adms:prev <http://www.opengis.net/def/serviceType/ogc/csw/2.0.2> ;
. |
Reading the discussion here and in the last sprint on versioning, I understand that the vocabularies under consideration are DCTerms, PROV and PAV. It may be worth mentioning that versioning was also addressed in ADMS, where specific properties are defined:
Please note that, despite what said in their discursive definitions, no domain or range restriction is specified for these properties. |
Sorry, I forgot |
I don't remember if this was already mentioned, but another aspect of versioning may concern the resource "status" - e.g., draft, stable, deprecated, withdrawn. The EU Publications Office maintains some reference code lists - the two that may be most relevant here are: E.g., the dataset status code list above includes the following statuses (alphabetically ordered):
The concept status code list includes additional statuses. This information is clearly useful for administrative purposes, but relevant as well for users. E.g., in the JRC Data Catalogue, these statuses determine where a dataset can be published (e.g., a dataset in draft status is not supposed to be published in production). On the other hand, deprecated, discontinued, or withdrawn records are not removed from the catalogue (because of the persistence policy we have in place), but they are "marked" as such, so that users are aware they shouldn't be used or are not longer available. |
I think we are close to an agreement on this issue, as the following sentence, already included in DCAT 2, shows that we apply versioning on all the first-class entities (datasets, distribution, but in principle also catalogs and data service) see section about Versioning
Some concerns were expressed on versioning for data services, in particular, whether content or service changes should trigger a new version for data Service, but I think this is up to the adopters to decide. I suggest adding the requirement mentioned by Andrea about the "resource status" as a separate issue. Then if there are no objections, I think we can close this GitHub issue. What do others think? |
+1 from me. Thanks for the summary, @riccardoAlbertoni . |
I include in this discussion, @pwin' s view as expressed in the mailing list:
|
Version subject [RVSS]
Identify DCAT resources that are subject to versioning, i.e. Catalog, Dataset, Distribution.
Related use cases: Dataset Versioning Information [ID4] Identification of versioned datasets and subsets [ID44]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: