-
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
Should DCAT define a property for version identifiers? #1280
Comments
Original thread started in #1275 , following feedback reported in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2020Oct/0086.html Copying below the comments submitted so far:
@andrea-perego - #1275 (comment)
@riccardoAlbertoni - #1275 (comment)
@riccardoAlbertoni - #1275 (comment)
|
@riccardoAlbertoni said:
Just to add that |
@agreiner said:
I don't recall the DWBP rationale behind the decision of using |
I forgot to mention that also DISCO is using https://rdf-vocabulary.ddialliance.org/discovery.html#versioning-information |
As far as I am concerned, the use of |
HCLS uses pav:version, so not everyone agrees on owl:version-info. From looking at the use case (one of only three we have, where the third is a special case of the first one, so in a way this is half our requirements), "Being able to publish dataset version information in a standard way will help both producers publishing their data on data catalogues or archiving data and dataset consumers who want discover new versions of a given dataset, etc." Failing to adopt any specific term seems like failing to address this use case. The more recent feedback from Sandia National Lab also asks for a version term in DCAT. |
Related to The notes on @agreiner said:
Do you think that adopting |
Thanks, Alejandra. I think we need to do more than just recommending. With this clarification, owl:versionInfo seems like a reasonable choice. I think what people are hoping for is an agreement to use one particular term as part of DCAT, not just a statement that there are many options and we like one of them.
-Annette
… On Nov 18, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran ***@***.***> wrote:
Related to pav:version <https://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/#d4e869>, we should consider that PAV <https://pav-ontology.github.io/pav/> (the Provenance, Authoring and Versioning vocabulary) is not a W3C recommendation.
The notes on owl:versionInfo <https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#versionInfo-def> indicate that "Although this property is typically used to make statements about ontologies, it may be applied to any OWL construct. For example, one could attach a owl:versionInfo statement to an OWL class. ". So, it seems a suitable existing property to cover the use case.
@agreiner <https://github.com/agreiner> said:
Failing to adopt any specific term seems like failing to address this use case.
Do you think that adopting owl:versionInfo is not appropriate for addressing the use?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1280 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGVLNZC7NIA5YIZUI2CE4TSQRDQRANCNFSM4TVMY6RQ>.
|
The RDF OWA means that we can't actually force anyone to do anything. Around 15 years ago I was involved in developing the Geography Markup Language. (Actually several versions between 2001 and 2007). We hedged our bets and provided multiple alternative options everywhere, allowing for almost every variation that anyone asked for. Big mistake. It was a huge burden on data consumers (who had to be ready to accept anything) and almost no work for data providers (since they had inserted their existing model into the standard). And no-one was happy because there was just too much variation to allow data to be brought together. I learned my lesson. |
@dr-shorthair: |
I agree with @agreiner and @dr-shorthair's comments that we need to make a recommendation of specific terms and provide examples. As @riccardoAlbertoni hinted to, I think that is the intention for DCAT3, while for this FPWD we want to hear comments about the approach and properties chosen. |
<owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://purl.org/pav/">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Provenance, Authoring and Versioning (PAV)</rdfs:label>
<owl:versionInfo rdf:datatype="&xsd;string">2.3.1</owl:versionInfo>
<owl:versionIRI rdf:resource="&pav;2.3"/>
<owl:priorVersion rdf:resource="&pav;2.2"/>
<owl:backwardCompatibleWith rdf:resource="&pav;2.2"/>
<owl:backwardCompatibleWith rdf:resource="&pav;2.1"/>
<owl:backwardCompatibleWith rdf:resource="&pav;2.0/"/>
<owl:backwardCompatibleWith rdf:resource="&pav;authoring/2.0/"/>
<owl:backwardCompatibleWith rdf:resource="&pav;provenance/2.0/"/>
<owl:backwardCompatibleWith rdf:resource="&pav;versioning/2.0/"/>
<owl:incompatibleWith rdf:resource="http://swan.mindinformatics.org/ontologies/1.2/pav.owl"/>
<!-- ... -->
</owl:Ontology> But for tracking versions of datasets then https://practicalprovenance.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/tracking-versions-with-pav/#organize we say how you can also use PAV relations like |
Thanks for your feedback, @stain . We have a new draft of the versioning section, where we opted to focus on a more specific notion of version, and to build upon PAV for the specification of version history: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/dcat-versioning-v2/dcat/index.html#dataset-versions |
@andrea-perego just a quick (formal) note: it looks a bit strange that this new text in PR #1295 presents the new dcat:version but still has an editor note (mentioning this issue) that seems not to acknowledge that DCAT has begun to move away from |
Thanks for pointing this out, @aisaac . As this is still a draft for discussion, a ref to all the relevant open issues has been kept, whereas EDNOTEs are used to explain how they are being addressed in the current version. |
Thanks @andrea-perego . You're right the reference to the issue should be kept, if the idea is not to close this issue when the PR is merged. And this is tricky to handle from an editorial perspective. Would it be possible to have the EDNOTE right after the issue note (i.e., moving the issue note on 1271 elsewhere)? This could make the story easier to understand for readers. |
Excellent, @andrea-perego ! |
No other issues were raised after PR #1295 was merged. Closing. |
DCAT currently recommends the use of
owl:versionInfo
for specifying version identifiers.It is to be decided whether a more specific property is needed, which may be possibly defined in the DCAT namespace.
NB: The discussion that led to the adoption of
owl:versionInfo
is documented in #92The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: