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: cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu [cf-metadata-bounces at cgd.ucar.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff deLaBeaujardiere [Jeff.deLaBeaujardiere at noaa.gov]
> Sent: 16 December 2010 19:40
> To: John Graybeal
> Cc: cf-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> 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
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> 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.
Received on Thu Dec 16 2010 - 14:08:16 GMT
