I offer my two cents on versioned terms, prompted by the 'absolutely right' phrasing :->. I am firmly straddling the fence on this question.
There are multiple science users and many technical opinions that say not having versions is absolutely wrong. The circumstances that could make 'current' *not* what you want include: - you need to understand what definition (or other statements) was in effect when the tag was applied - you want to understand the transitions that the definition (or other statements) has undergone over time - the meaning of a term actually is significantly different than it used to be - additional meanings are associated with a term (e.g., an acronym is repurposed by another organization) at a later date I believe the last happens much more often than your confidence suggest -- perhaps especially in emerging fields or those that are newly developing documented vocabularies, extremely advanced or subjective fields, and concepts that get 'culturally adopted', e.g., turned into a pejorative (slang (that last not our problem, for the most part). I don't see how the exclusive use of non-versioned terms supports these situations. So while I appreciate the motivations for not including versions, I think versions have to be offered by the system, and ideally should be used where unique persistent identifiers are required. John On Dec 16, 2010, at 13:08, Jeff deLaBeaujardiere wrote: > Actually, my recollection is that EPSG & OGC proposed to include version > numbers, and several of us argued against it and managed to convince them. I > would have to dig up old emails to find out for certain who was in which > camp, however. > > Regards, > Jeff DLB > > On 2010-12-16 15:57, Lowry, Roy K. wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> It's interesting to see the difference of opinion between the standards >> developers (the idea of version number in URI came from the OGC URN >> specification: interesting how EPSG came to a different conclusion) and >> those who have to live with the consequences. The more I think about it, the >> more I think you and Benno are absolutely right. >> >> Cheers, Roy. >> ________________________________________ >> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Jeff deLaBeaujardiere [[email protected]] >> Sent: 16 December 2010 19:40 >> To: John Graybeal >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Web reference to a standard name? >> >> On 2010-12-14 12:56, John Graybeal wrote: >>> Just to be crystal clear, the places where you have '16' could also have >>> 'current' (if I understand correctly what Roy was saying about their >>> server), and the mmisw one could also be served with a particular version >>> ID (analogous to the NERC example). >> >> I think it is of the utmost importance to have a URI that does not include a >> version number >> and always provides the latest answer. Otherwise you have a proliferation of >> identifiers >> mean the same thing but appear to change every time the overall vocabulary >> is updated. You >> can also have a version-specific entry if desired. >> >> There were similar discussions regarding identifiers for coordinate >> reference system >> identifiers from EPSG (European Petroleum Survey Group), and it was >> fortunately >> recognized that a version-less URI was essential. >> >> -Jeff >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CF-metadata mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata-- >> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only NERC >> is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents >> of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless >> it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to >> NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system. > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata John Graybeal <mailto:[email protected]> phone: 858-534-2162 System Development Manager Ocean Observatories Initiative Cyberinfrastructure Project: http://ci.oceanobservatories.org Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
