This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 15, 2021. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
RFC0018: Context resource #31
RFC0018: Context resource #31
Changes from all commits
f076df4
62b4b6c
0052094
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any reason why this can't be mandatory if we return it here? A register should always have a human readable description, otherwise how do people know to use it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, ideally yes and it is something we will probably want to enforce for registers part of the our catalogue but I can foresee registers not having a description at early/immature stages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was wondering if we actually need this. When we've implemented multihash, I think you should be able to determine the hashing algorithm used by looking at its root hash.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's a nice thing to offer and not at a big cost. Why do you think it shouldn't be there? The fact that you can infer it doesn't mean it is useless or harmful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough, it's just a general preference for less information returned but I don't have strong opinions about this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like what we refer to in other place as
fields
is there a deliberate attempt to move away from this to schema? If so we should be consistent across other instances e.g. RSF. if not, we should call itfields
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm also wondering whether this would prevent us from supporting another metadata standard.
For example, if we wanted to provide things like csvw or json schema it would be great if we just had one resource and you can request the standard you want, using content types. But I'm not sure if that would fit this model where the schema is part of a larger object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MatMoore I did the research on using json schema or csvw schemas and json-ld related and the result is that Registers is not really 100% compatible with them due our primitives. Both csvw and json-schema let you define your own patterns which could work for us as a sort-of compatible translation but it's messier than it seems.
Now, particularly with csvw, it allows to provide schema + context although probably not everything this context resource is offering. I'm not sure it's worth it extracting (again) the schema just because of that.
@gidsg It is deliberated indeed. The "fields" approach builds on a central vocabulary held in the fields register and it has been proven a mistake. Moving away from this central model to a local schema definition predates me, but I totally agree with it.
Changing terminology to schema and attributes is important because a) it's not the same and b) when it is (i.e. field vs attribute) I want to be able to talk about previous concepts with minimal confusion.
RSF is something we can change when we are ready and comfortable but to my eyes it is not important enough to reject or hold this RFC. After all, RSF is an internal format that so far has not even a stable specification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is the first time registers have linked to other registers by URL.
This could cause problems if that URL breaks but the register is still available elsewhere.
Another way of doing this would be to use a CURIE then rely on a catalog to resolve this to something (and this could be a catalog outside of GDS's control if GDS is no longer hosting the register register). Although then you couldn't replace a register with a non-register.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, it is the first time indeed, the intention of this is to point to the successor which should be a fixed and clear appointment. I imagine the situation you describe being resolved by a regular HTTP 301 redirection. I'm not sure the indirection added by a CURIE is worth it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right now I cannot see where this information would be persisted? Is there a companion to this that addresses how this is represented in RSF/Entry log? If not I think this should be pulled out into a separate RFC that describes Status and its representation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@arnau please can you address this comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@gidsg status must be part of the register metadata which means it has to be encoded in RSF. The way to express that will highly depend on the metadata solution we end up having but, if it is in line with what we have right now it will be an system entry with the appropriate key pointing to a blob with these information.