A working copy cannot “see” another in EDG. The word “copy” is misleading in
that it is not a copy at all but is a set of changes to be applied. The UI
makes the changes appear as real triples but they are not. So, not really
comparable to git at all.
Customers today handle this kind of issue by being reviewers or editors on both
workflows and by business process management of work tasks (eg daily scrums and
using chat tools).
There is work on this topic for the future so if you have detailed use case you
can share it would be great to submit a feature request thru Support so it can
be considered as part of that effort.
Cheers,
David
> On 18 Feb 2022, at 20:51, Tim Smith <smith.ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I am exploring the robustness of change management within the EDG working
> copy process.
>
> When I open two workflows at the same time from the same production graph and
> make changes that are intended to conflict, I don't see any conflict
> detection or resolution.
>
> For example:
> In WF #1, I delete instance :inst1.
> In WF #2, I add the triple {:inst1 :getsDataFrom :inst2.}
>
> I commit WF #1 first, deleting :inst1 and removing all triples about :inst1.
>
> When I commit WF #2, the {:inst1 :getsDataFrom inst2 } triple is added but is
> essentially a "hanging" triple because everything else about :inst1 has been
> deleted by WF #1.
>
> I was thinking that WF #2 would check to see if the production graph had been
> changed and surface all the changes between the WF #2 working copy and the
> current production graph, not the production graph WF #2 originated from.
>
> I also noticed that after committing WF #1, when I ran the "See
> Changes/Comparison Report" in WF #2, the full URL for :inst1 was displayed
> instead of the label indicating that this report is "sort of" running against
> the new production graph created by committing WF #1 (i.e. the :inst1
> rdfs:label triple is gone). HOWEVER, I see the new triple as the only change
> even though other changes have occured to the production graph via WF #1.
>
> Is my understanding of how EDG handles simultaneous workflows correct? If
> so, should multiple working copies be permitted? Can this process be changed
> so conflicts can be detected and resolved between multiple working copies
> (more like how GitHub works)
>
> This is critical functionality to a large use case that I am exploring.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/CAF0WbnLbWWJoc%2BE3vOAiCvLRVtNhvUvBPiEJdH32dZ1McZu0nw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to topbraid-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/topbraid-users/7A145419-9C78-4C75-8144-9436E99CBDCF%40topquadrant.com.
