mkroetzsch added a comment. @daniel It makes sense to use wikibase rather than wikidata, but I don't think it matters very much at all. We should just define it rather sooner than later.
As for the versioning, I don't see how to convince you. Four more attempts: - Try to apply your proposal to the MediaWiki API: "Every API action should contain the MW version number." I think from your experience with MW it should be easier for you to see why this would be a bad idea. RDF is the same, but it affects a lot more APIs. - Another argument is that, of course, changing URIs does not give users any warnings about the change either. Their queries will just return different results, but there won't be any error message or the like. This behaviour is exactly the same as for other kinds of breaking changes. You just add a new kind of breaking change that is sure to break everybody's usage (not just the users' who use BCE dates, to stay in your example), but the breakage is still subtle and hard to notice in a running system. URI versioning does not implement any kind of "fail fast" principle that you would want for announcing breaking changes. There is no standard way of announcing breaking changes via an RDF or SPARQL API; you need to work on your community communication to get this done (e.g., one could send notes about breaking changes well in advance to wikidata-tech and gather feedback). - You gave an example where a well-informed group of experts decided against your recommendation. I know of many other examples where URIs were initially created to contain a version number that was then never changed even after major updates (FOAF for example), again because experts in the field deemed that this was a sensible way to go. I would also claim some expertise in this area. Your view is natural for somebody who has not worked much with ontologies. Many smart people have thought similar ten years ago (you can see a lot of "0.1" and "1.0" version numbers in vocabulary URIs. Even the SMW ontology includes a version number in the URIs; of course it also never changed). Experience shows that the case where you would ever want to do such a drastic thing is the case where you use completely new URIs anyway (and probably give the project another name, too). - You could always decide to do the versioning later on if you must. There is no problem going from URIs http://wikiba.se/ontology#... to URIs http://wikiba.se/ontology-2.0.0#.... There is no standard way of encoding version information in URIs and you would not write a SPARQL query to extract it from there. However, in most cases, if you really change the meaning of one URI, you would rather use a new URI for this one thing only and keep all the other URIs as they are. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T93207 REPLY HANDLER ACTIONS Reply to comment or attach files, or !close, !claim, !unsubscribe or !assign <username>. EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: mkroetzsch Cc: adrianheine, Manybubbles, Smalyshev, mkroetzsch, Denny, Lydia_Pintscher, Aklapper, daniel, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Krenair, Dzahn _______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
