Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Summarizing restructuring Purls to reflect version number

Expand Messages
  • Bill Kearney
    I m gathering from everyone s feedback that using a stable URI to start with is an important thing. If we advance guidelines that indicate the helpful nature
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm gathering from everyone's feedback that using a stable URI to start with is
      an important thing.

      If we advance guidelines that indicate the helpful nature of using versioned
      URIs that'd be a good start. Then using an optional prefix:version element
      would help a module indicate variations within it's parent namespace. This too
      could be advanced as a 'best practice' guideline. The thought being the reader
      tool developers could remain aware that a version element could appear and might
      affect their use of the module's content. And that a variation in the namespace
      URI would indicate that significant enough changes have occurred as to warrant
      further updating in the reader environment.

      At the same time as Jon has pointed out, the RDF schemata for these things does
      have some nice framework for helping programs that care to do the digging ways
      to find out much more factual information about what's really happening. The
      hassle being that many modules currently lack such schemata. It would help if
      we advanced the idea that doing a schema is more than just a trivial thing and
      is well worth having for a module.

      So at this point I'm left with this:

      Pick a good URI and trail it with a version string. Do not alter that string
      for subtle format additions. Alter that string only on changes that would
      significantly affect the parsing of the module contents. Warning, of course,
      that variations put upon this namespace cause complications downstream that are
      much harder to fix that one might anticipate.

      If needed, put an optional prefix:version string in the feed that contains the
      actual variation used within the namespace URI.

      This raises some questions as well. Should the format of said string being
      closely modelled on user-agent as used in Mozilla? And 'where' in the feed
      should a module put this element? As in, where should a reader program expect
      to find such elements?

      We're also left with the question of using versions on a per-item basis. How
      would we want to speak of that practice? It's certainly legal to do it but
      reader programs are most likely completely unprepared to handle it properly.

      Thanks,
      Bill Kearney
    • Morten Frederiksen
      Hi (Bill), ... May I suggest going with the idea of RDF, as in: If you happen to have that URI formatted as a superstring
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi (Bill),

        On Wednesday 11 September 2002 15:20, you wrote:
        > If needed, put an optional prefix:version string in the feed that contains
        > the actual variation used within the namespace URI.
        > This raises some questions as well. Should the format of said string being
        > closely modelled on user-agent as used in Mozilla? And 'where' in the feed
        > should a module put this element? As in, where should a reader program
        > expect to find such elements?
        May I suggest going with the idea of RDF, as in:
        <prefix:version rdf:resource="URI"/>

        If you happen to have that URI formatted as a superstring of the namespace
        URI, you have subversioning...

        NS: http://purl.org/module/1/
        version: http://purl.org/module/1/23#

        This model would of course be optional, as long as they are URIs (and perhaps
        URLs) , I don't see a reason for a specifiec format, except for human reading
        -- they shoud never be parsed.


        Regards,
        Morten
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.