Closed riccardoAlbertoni closed 2 years ago
@riccardoAlbertoni , I suggest we discuss this change in the next DCAT meeting before merging.
I see a number of issues if we replace "version" with "revision":
- If the problem is what "version" means, then we need also to define what a revision is.
- If we use "revision", then it's a bit odd to call the property dcat:version
- The two points above apply also to all the other properties related to versioning.
About the original issue (i.e., support to both text and numbers), I suggest we revise the definition as per what said in the usage note:
The version indicator (name or identifier) of a resource.
I agree. So I've changed the phrasing as you have suggested.
@kcoyle, @agreiner: Are you ok with this phrasing?
should we continue the discussion in https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1442? one of the arguments was that we shouldn't use 'version' to define 'version', and that's why 'revision' was seen as an alternative - I agree we would probably need further clarification
should we continue the discussion in #1442? one of the arguments was that we shouldn't use 'version' to define 'version', and that's why 'revision' was seen as an alternative - I agree we would probably need further clarification
@agbeltran see https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1442#issuecomment-1033158236
Does it sound convincing to you?
…ore explicitly
closes #1442