Definition of "software version" terms

[cmaumet]

Overview

Currently, versioning is encoded using, first:

• nidm:softwareVersion (e.g. "SPM12", "4.0.3")

and then we have an additional specific term in SPM and FSL to give more precision:

• spm:softwareRevision that provides the revision number (e.g. "v6225") that is displayed when starting up spm (but not when invoking spm('ver') )
• fsl:featVersion that provides the version of feat (for a mapping from feat version to FSL version cf. Retreive FSL software version (and not feat version) from a feat directory nidmresults-fsl#3).

Examples of usage for FSL:

niiri:software_id a prov:Agent , nlx:birnlex_2067 , prov:SoftwareAgent ;
    rdfs:label "FSL" ;
    nidm:softwareVersion "fsl-5_0_x"^^xsd:string ;
    fsl:featVersion "6.00"^^xsd:string .

Examples of usage for SPM:

niiri:software_id a prov:Agent , nlx:nif-0000-00343 , prov:SoftwareAgent ;
    rdfs:label "SPM" ;
    nidm:softwareVersion "SPM12"^^xsd:string ;
    spm:softwareRevision "6225"^^xsd:string .

Current definitions:

• nidm:softwareVersion: Name and number that specifies the software version
• spm:softwareRevision: revision number of a piece of software
• fsl:featVersion

Proposal

@tiborauer recently suggested (on a call) to combine the nidm:softwareVersion and spm:softwareRevision (as the revision number can be considered as part of SPM version), we could therefore have:

niiri:software_id a prov:Agent , nlx:nif-0000-00343 , prov:SoftwareAgent ;
    rdfs:label "SPM" ;
    nidm:softwareVersion "SPM12.6225"^^xsd:string ;
    spm:softwareRevision "6225"^^xsd:string .

In terms of definitions, how about:

• nidm:softwareVersion: Name and number that specifies the software version. For SPM, this includes the main software version followed by the revision number (e.g. SPM8.6225).
• fsl:featVersion: Version of the FEAT software.

[satra]

i would recommend:

nidm:softwareVersion "5.0.8"^^xsd:string # for fsl
nidm:softwareVersion "12.6225"^^xsd:string # for spm

[satra]

or perhaps more explicitly for spm:

nidm:softwareVersion "2012.6225"

so that

nidm:softwareVersion "1996.123" can be used :)

[nicholsn]

Any reason we chose not to use a term from another vocab for software
version?

See examples on bio portal

sent via mobile, please excuse brevity and typos
On Apr 2, 2015 7:45 AM, "Satrajit Ghosh" notifications@github.com wrote:

or perhaps more explicitly for spm:

nidm:softwareVersion "2012.6225"

so that

nidm:softwareVersion "1996.123" can be used :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#291 (comment).

[cmaumet]

@satra: +1 for the FSL formatting, but I am too sure for SPM as I think keeping "SPM12", "SPM96" in the version would be more explicit... What do other think?

@nicholsn: I agree we could re-use a term from an external ontology but, in this particular case, I like the fact that with a nidm term, we have the possibility to specify more precisely what we mean by softwareVersion in our context (in particular for the SPM case where officially the SPM version would only be "SPM12").

[tiborauer]

I like Satra's comment:
nidm:softwareVersion "5.0.8"^^xsd:string # for fsl
nidm:softwareVersion "12.6225"^^xsd:string # for spm

I have never seen SPM using version 2012 but rather 12. I know it is a bit conusing that 99 is followed by 2, but it is the same with e.g. Windows 98 and (a few versons later) Windows 7.

[nicholst]

+1 for @tiborauer's & @satra's original proposal, with "5.0.8" and "12.6225".

[khelm]

+1 for @tiborauer's & @satra's of "5.0.8" and "12.6225".

[cmaumet]

Thank you! Now implemented and ready to go.