<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>Hello,<div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 23 Feb 2023, at 08:45, Markus Demleitner <<a href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de" class="">msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Dear DM,<br class=""><br class="">On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:55:53PM +0100, Laurent Michel wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">However I’m not satisfied with the way those VODML files are<br class="">published because the physical URLs e.g<br class=""><a href="https://ivoa.net/xml/VODML/<Model>-v1.8.vo-dml.xml" class="">https://ivoa.net/xml/VODML/<Model>-v1.8.vo-dml.xml</a><br class=""><https://ivoa.net/xml/VODML/%3CModel%3E-v1.8.vo-dml.xml> are<br class="">hidden. Both links should be visible on the XML page.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Let me say I'm unconvinced there is much value having all the past<br class="">minor versions lying around. They probably will, in the end,<br class="">analogous to what happens with schemas, but, really, I have a hard<br class="">time imagining why anyone would want to access an old schema file<br class="">except in very rare circumstances (that we can now cover with version<br class="">control).<br class=""><br class="">And lugging the old minor versions around does have a price tag. For<br class="">instance, these minor-versioned URIs may tempt people into putting<br class="">these into MIVOT's MODEL/@url. Whether or not that's bad is an<br class="">interesting question (which perhaps also should be addressed in<br class="">MIVOT). If this were XML, it'd be a disaster.<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>My point of view is that minor-versioned documents are related to existing standards, </div><div>therefore they must keep available on the doc repo as long as the (old) standards exists.</div><div>Hiding the minored versions is somehow like prohibiting using those version. Is that what we want?</div><div><div class=""><div>My proposal would be to have something like this on the XML page:</div><div></div></div></div><div><br class=""></div><div><MyModel.v1.vom-dml.xml> —- [<MyModel.v1.0.vom-dml.xml> <MyModel.v1.1.vom-dml.xml> <MyModel.v1.2.vom-dml.xml> ]</div><div><br class=""></div><div>where <MyModel.v1.vom-dml.xml> is redirected to <MyModel.v1.2.vom-dml.xml></div><div>So that any documents could safely refer to <MyModel.v1.vom-dml.xml></div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Be that as it may: a filled-out uri element (missing in all the<br class="">vo-dml files in the repo so far) is important to me because MIVOT<br class="">requires the URL of the models in the model declarations. DaCHS has<br class="">local copies of those[1] and hence can't easily tell what URIs they<br class="">may prefer.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div>for tne record:</div><div><div>The MIVOT schema requires MODEL@url not be empty IF PRESENT.</div><div><MODEL name=“MyModel”/> is valid.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div>I like the Paul's idea of encouraging the usage of short URLs e.g. "MyModel.v1.vom-dml.xml” and letting clients </div><div>getting them from their favorite place (file:// or <a href="https://ivoa.net" class="">https://ivoa.net</a>…)</div><div>This must be clarified in the MODEL section of MIVOT.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Would this help DACHS for dealing with documents with empty uri? </div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">So, either the models give that themselves, or I have to provide a<br class="">local mapping in DaCHS, the latter obviously being ugly and brittle.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I do not follow you, if you need the document to get its URI, you must first have that URI to get the document.</div><div>AS Paul said, you can cross-check the document URI with its content by using <name><version> elements. </div><div>No need of any <uri> element.</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> <br class="">So... who will fill in the uri-s?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Thus, I’m not sure we need to.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Thanks,<br class=""><br class=""> Markus<br class=""><br class="">[1] Talking about which: I'd also appreciate if there were a<br class="">statement somewhere that these files are CC-0. Please don't leave<br class="">them under the document's CC-BY, because I could then not<br class="">(realistially) distribute them with my code.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>A CC-0 label on the top of the XML files would be nice.</div><div>Do you we need errata for this?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Laurent</div><br class=""></div></body></html>