[versioning-3] Re: Votes? [was: Vocabularies issues]

[Frederic Hessman]

>>> Catching a redirection can't possibly be the way of determining  
>>> the version of a vocabulary.  If there's no Dublin-core-style way  
>>> of documenting versioning, then we need to stipulate explicit  
>>> versioning (not very pretty) or mandate the inclusion of an  
>>> official versioning element like
>>
>> 	<ivoa:vocabularyVersion>1.1</ivoa:vocabularyVersion>
>>
>> even if it isn't standard (it's not our fault that our non- 
>> astronomical colleagues are careless).  This way, http://myvocab.org/myvocab#mytoken 
>>  looks like it's long-term, but a glance at the internal  
>> documentation can be made to double-check if necessary.
>
> The DCMI metadata terms <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ 
> > include hasVersion and isVersionOf, but one very direct way of  
> indicating the version would (potentially) be in the namespace URL.

No, <dc:hasVersion> is a means of referencing an external related  
resource and so is nothing like what we need.

As far as I can see, by perusing the above link, is that we should be  
using <dc:identifier>

Definition:	An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given  
context.
Comment:	Recommended best practice is to identify the resource by  
means of a string conforming to a formal identification system.
How about the recommendation that publishers including the following:

	<dc:identifier>{string-somehow-representing-current-version-number}</ 
dc:identifier>

We should strongly suggest that the "string conforming to a formal  
identification system" contain

	1) the name of the vocabulary and

	2) it's version number

but the exact format shouldn't matter (one only wants to be able to  
compare strings).  E.g., for our previous http://myvocab.org/myvocab-1.1#myToken 
  example, we would suggest using

	namespace:		http://myvocab.org/myvocab#myToken

and any of the following would be reasonable identifiers fulfilling  
the DCMI requirements:

	myvocab-v1.1 2008-FEB-06
	myvocab 2008-02-06
	myvocab v1.1
	myvocab version 1.1
	myvocab 1.1
	Version 1.1 des wissenschaftlichen Vokabulars mit den Namen myvocab

The SKOS file would start with, e.g.,

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#"
	xml:base="http://myvocab.org/myvocab#" >
	<skos:ConceptScheme rdf:about="">
		<dc:title>myvocab Thesaurus</dc:title>
		<dc:identifier>myvocab Version Fri Nov 30 15:46:01 2008</ 
dc:identifier>
		<skos:hasTopConcept ....>
		....
	</skos:ConceptScheme>
	<skos:Concept rdf:about=...
	...
</rdf:RDF>

If I'm right about this use of the DCMI metadata term, then there is  
nothing not to recommend this solution.

Ultimately, of course, publishers will do what they want.    The power  
of our Darwinian solution is that we are free to ignore vocabularies  
that don't have identifiers, if we feel we need the extra control of  
knowing whether a version change has occured.

If I'm right about this, is there any need for discussion: publishers  
do what they want, but we implore them to have stable namespaces (i.e.  
no versioning, so that we don't have to constantly look to see if it's  
changed) and internal identifiers documenting any versioning.   This  
is the best of both worlds.

Rick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20080205/88e0deb0/attachment-0001.html>