<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>--<br></div><div>Patrick Dowler<br></div>Canadian Astronomy Data Centre<br></div>Victoria, BC, Canada<br></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Pat,<br>
<br>
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:01:36AM -0700, Patrick Dowler wrote:<br>
> In my experience evolving CAOM, it is possible to change from an enum to a<br>
> vocabulary term without invalidating existing instances (stored in<br>
> databases, eg). It does require that one use the datalink-style where you<br>
<br>
Yes, but as I said a mail up:<br>
<br>
> > constraints, which might still break clients, though). However, the<br>
> > enums would have to be defined, and I don't think anyone would want<br>
> > to do that.<br>
<br>
-- it would mean introducing enums now, and that's a lot more<br>
intrusive (and probably more work) compared to vocabularies than<br>
what's in ProvDM now (which is a rather weak "see if something in<br>
Table X fits").<br>
<br>
-- Markus<br>
</blockquote></div>