PR#2 for Provenance DM : syncronicity with vocabularies definition in Semantics WG

[Patrick Dowler]

sorry for empty previous message...

Oh - sure -- if the enums are not defined now then one has to weigh the
effort to do that cost + future change vs immediate vocab cost. I was just
saying that enum->vocab evolution path is manageable.  I agree that going
to vocab now is probably less work even in the short term, especially if
people don't get too hung up on the initial values (better to err on the
side of too few to start).



--
Patrick Dowler
Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
Victoria, BC, Canada


On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 10:41, Patrick Dowler <pdowler.cadc at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> --
> Patrick Dowler
> Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Markus Demleitner <
> msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pat,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:01:36AM -0700, Patrick Dowler wrote:
>> > In my experience evolving CAOM, it is possible to change from an enum
>> to a
>> > vocabulary term without invalidating existing instances (stored in
>> > databases, eg). It does require that one use the datalink-style where
>> you
>>
>> Yes, but as I said a mail up:
>>
>> > > constraints, which might still break clients, though).  However, the
>> > > enums would have to be defined, and I don't think anyone would want
>> > > to do that.
>>
>> -- it would mean introducing enums now, and that's a lot more
>> intrusive (and probably more work) compared to vocabularies than
>> what's in ProvDM now (which is a rather weak "see if something in
>> Table X fits").
>>
>>       -- Markus
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20190905/11460e99/attachment.html>