URGENT: Changing Hypercat metadata names?

[Pilgrim Beart]

All,

We recently held an all-day session to review the BSI PAS 212 specification (i.e. Hypercat) following its public consultation. There were about 100 comments which took some working-through. Most of the changes are minor drafting changes ... but there was one really big suggestion:

The naming of the metadata fields in Hypercat is extremely confusing:

1. The metadata block of the catalogue itself is called "item-metadata"
   
2. The metadata block of each item in the catalogue is called "i-object-metadata" (which is bizarre but not actively confusing)

This probably causes everyone who looks at the spec some confusion.

So the review panel proposed that we seize the opportunity to CHANGE at least the catalogue metadata name now, before the first proper "standards" work is completed. 

I think we have three options:

OPTION A : DO NOTHING (i.e. accept it's too late)

OPTION B: 

1. Rename catalogue metadata to "catalogue-metadata"
2. Keep item metadata called "i-object-metadata"

OPTION C: 

1. Rename catalogue metadata to "catalogue-metadata"
2. Rename item metadata to "item-metadata"

[note that in the latter case we would have moved the name item-metadata from catalogue to item, which would probably be confusing to existing Hypercat users!]

This change would break the spec, so would be a move to 3.0.

Please could you give me your feedback about this ASAP. If everyone agrees that it's horrible and we have to fix it, and undertakes to change it in a big bang now in their code, then I think we could get away with it. In that case, I'd propose OPTION B.

But if people think it's too late (which was my first reaction), then we'll have to let it stand, i.e. OPTION A.

There is also discussion about feeding HyperCat work into the W3C work on discovery, and again it would be great to give them something that's as clear as it can be.

Your thoughts by return please!

Tx,

-Pilgrim

07961 125282

--

Learn more about 1248 DevicePilot at http://devicepilot.com  @1248_io  +44 7961 125282

[Daniel McGreal]

Hi Pilgrim,

I would change it. Option C preferably.

Dan.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HyperCat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hypercat+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to hype...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/CAJVN1hieiVKNK4V_ZNoz712dFErm%2BtHxoTQiqH8r4pc3hupHjA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[john.nj...@bt.com]

It’s ugly as it is and better to change it now than leave it that way “forever” – Option B would be my first preference, followed by Option C.

 

John.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/66C1BA73-DA55-416D-A721-75AC3C692893%40gmail.com.

[Golby, David (UK)]

Hi Pilgrim

 

Please accept my vote for option C.

 

David

 

 

 

From: hype...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hype...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pilgrim Beart
Sent: 17 February 2016 09:24
To: hype...@googlegroups.com
Subject: URGENT: Changing Hypercat metadata names?

 

 

*** WARNING ***

This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
For information regarding Red Flags that you can look out for in emails you receive, click here.
If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HyperCat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hypercat+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to hype...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/CAJVN1hieiVKNK4V_ZNoz712dFErm%2BtHxoTQiqH8r4pc3hupHjA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

[Graham Allan]

Pilgrim

 

 

I think that option C is better, clearer up the names now.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Graham

 

From: hype...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hype...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pilgrim Beart
Sent: 17 February 2016 09:24
To: hype...@googlegroups.com
Subject: URGENT: Changing Hypercat metadata names?

 

All,

--

[w.he...@surrey.ac.uk]

Hi Pilgrim,

 

UoS prefers Option C.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

From: hype...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hype...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pilgrim Beart
Sent: 17 February 2016 09:24
To: hype...@googlegroups.com
Subject: URGENT: Changing Hypercat metadata names?

 

All,

--

[Grzegorz Klimaszewski]

Hi Pilgrim,

I agree - option C seems most straight forward.

Kind regards,
Greg

[dritan.kaleshi]

The original naming reflected the (nice) view that a "catalogue" is an "item" (OK - very purist, ASN.1-like, approach), and that you can have "nesting" of "items".

If it causes confusion, and if the people that have existing datasets compliant with HC 1.0/2.0 do not shout enough, then the change makes sense.

First choice for me is Option C; Option B only if it helps A LOT people with existing HC-compliant data stores.

Final note - maybe we need to start thinking of change management as part of the spec - guidelines, processes etc. Plenty of prior art to draw upon (e.g. IETF and W3C)

Dritan

--

Dr Dritan Kaleshi

5G Fellow

Mob: +44 (0) 7584 075 686 | Email: dritan....@digicatapult.org.uk | Twitter: @DritanKaleshi<https://twitter.com/DritanKaleshi>

Digital Catapult Centre | 101 Euston Road | London | NW1 2RA

@DigiCatapult  | digitalcatapultcentre.org.uk

[Laurie Reynolds]

I agree.

 

Thanks for your contributions to the meeting yesterday, I felt we made some positive progress on Hypercat exploitation.

 

Laurie

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/HE1PR06MB11950AB115D1D1A23575367DD5AE0%40HE1PR06MB1195.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Laurie Reynolds]

I meant to add, can you wrap up the ThinworX documentation so that we can submit to the marketplace process and I can report completion of our milestone on the project.

 

L

 

From: hype...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hype...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Graham Allan

Sent: 17 February 2016 09:51
To: hype...@googlegroups.com

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/HE1PR06MB11950AB115D1D1A23575367DD5AE0%40HE1PR06MB1195.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Laurie Reynolds]

Apologies for misposting via the group and then compounding the noise with my apology!

[Bill Clee]

Hi Pilgrim, 

I would say C, followed by B. 

Best 

Bill 

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/56C44B9D.8050908%40assetmapping.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All the best 

Bill 

Asset Mapping Explainer Video 

Bill Clee 

CEO & Founder 

07786181514 / bi...@assetmapping.com

Asset Mapping Office: +44 207 060 6014

www.assetmapping.com

[Lee Omar]

I can see where Toby is coming from.

I think we should go with C.

Kind Regards,

Lee

On 17 February 2016 at 15:23, Toby Jaffey <toby....@1248.io> wrote:

On 17 Feb 2016, at 13:11, Pilgrim Beart <pilgri...@1248.io> wrote:

> A consensus is emerging around C.
> Toby? Lee? Wot u think?

I think all of the options you've put on the table are bad because they break backwards compatibility.

To my mind, the most important use-case for HyperCat is data publishing. We've had many users who just want to make a catalogue file and stick it on the web.
All of your proposed changes will invalidate their work.

D) Tools supporting HyperCat V3 MUST produce "catalogue-metadata" and "item-metadata" but MUST consume both V2 and V3 names for sections interchangeably.
At a future time, V2 naming may be deprecated.

--

--

--

________________________________________

Lee Omar

CEO

________________________________________
 
Red Ninja Studios

Lower Ground Floor, Elevator Studios

29 - 31 Parliament Street

Liverpool

L8 5RN

United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)151 707 6707

m: +44 (0)7967 272790

e: lo...@redninja.co.uk

w: www.redninja.co.uk

Follow us @redninjastudios | @LeeOmar

_____________________________________________________________________

--

--

________________________________________

Lee Omar

CEO

________________________________________
 
Red Ninja Studios

Lower Ground Floor, Elevator Studios

29 - 31 Parliament Street

Liverpool

L8 5RN

United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)151 707 6707

m: +44 (0)7967 272790

e: lo...@redninja.co.uk

w: www.redninja.co.uk

Follow us @redninjastudios | @LeeOmar

_____________________________________________________________________

[Pilgrim Beart]

Quick update:

The consensus seems to be:

1) Yes, go for it!

2) Go for Option C, i.e. change both names.

As well as the responses in this forum, I've chased-up Richie S and Toby J too, who are on board, and am just waiting to hear from Lee too.

To be clear, the proposal is NOT to support backwards-compatibility with 2.0 (no need, because we'll all have moved to 3.0 by making this change). So it then becomes just ("just") a string replacement in the code with no functional change, so low risk. Of course, things like TopCat will need to be cleared and then resubmitted, but that shouldn't be a huge burden on anyone (I see it currently stands at 11 Hypercats).

Whilst we are doing that, there was a second suggestion out of the public consultation which I'd propose to roll into the change, regarding one of the optional search types: The "urn:X-hypercat:search:substring" is mis-named. It's a prefix search, not a substring search, so we'd change the constant to "urn:X-hypercat:search:prefix" and refer to it as "Prefix search").

Toby's suggestion is that we need to now set a date to cut over, and perhaps we can discuss that at the TRM on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, when I get a moment, I will draft a new version of our IETF-style spec (i.e. draft 3.0) with these two changes, for consideration.

Regards,

-P

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HyperCat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hypercat+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to hype...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/CAEYd6wP8_s65DNx4QfOW0wiC2pPtGkyScgt-tCk%2BdfRqzDrocA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andy Stanford-Clark]

C

Andy Stanford-Clark
Distinguished Engineer, Internet of Things

Master Inventor, Member IBM Academy of Technology, Fellow BCS
Honorary Professor University of East Anglia, Visiting Professor University of Newcastle
Tel: +44 (0)7801 787096 [internal: 37 277624]   twitter:@andysc

From:        Pilgrim Beart <pilgri...@1248.io>
To:        "hype...@googlegroups.com" <hype...@googlegroups.com>,
Date:        17/02/2016 09:24
Subject:        URGENT: Changing Hypercat metadata names?

Sent by:        hype...@googlegroups.com

---

All,
We recently held an all-day session to review the BSI PAS 212 specification (i.e. Hypercat) following its public consultation. There were about 100 comments which took some working-through. Most of the changes are minor drafting changes ... but there was one really big suggestion:

The naming of the metadata fields in Hypercat is extremely confusing:

1.        The metadata block of the catalogue itself is called "item-metadata"
2.        The metadata block of each item in the catalogue is called "i-object-metadata" (which is bizarre but not actively confusing)

This probably causes everyone who looks at the spec some confusion.

So the review panel proposed that we seize the opportunity to CHANGE at least the catalogue metadata name now, before the first proper "standards" work is completed. 

I think we have three options:

OPTION A : DO NOTHING (i.e. accept it's too late)

OPTION B: 

1.        Rename catalogue metadata to "catalogue-metadata"
2.        Keep item metadata called "i-object-metadata"
OPTION C: 
1.        Rename catalogue metadata to "catalogue-metadata"
2.        Rename item metadata to "item-metadata"

[note that in the latter case we would have moved the name item-metadata from catalogue to item, which would probably be confusing to existing Hypercat users!]

This change would break the spec, so would be a move to 3.0.

Please could you give me your feedback about this ASAP. If everyone agrees that it's horrible and we have to fix it, and undertakes to change it in a big bang now in their code, then I think we could get away with it. In that case, I'd propose OPTION B.

But if people think it's too late (which was my first reaction), then we'll have to let it stand, i.e. OPTION A.

There is also discussion about feeding HyperCat work into the W3C work on discovery, and again it would be great to give them something that's as clear as it can be.

Your thoughts by return please!

Tx,

-Pilgrim
07961 125282
--
Learn more about 1248 DevicePilot at http://devicepilot.com  @1248_io  +44 7961 125282

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HyperCat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

hypercat+u...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to

hype...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hypercat/CAJVN1hieiVKNK4V_ZNoz712dFErm%2BtHxoTQiqH8r4pc3hupHjA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

[Pilgrim Beart]

In advance of tomorrow's TRM, please find attached an rc1 draft of HyperCat 3.0 featuring the changes discussed.

Regards,

-P