Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Missing preceding versions #10

Closed
strogonoff opened this issue Jan 22, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

Missing preceding versions #10

strogonoff opened this issue Jan 22, 2022 · 5 comments

Comments

@strogonoff
Copy link

There is version 10 of this draft, but versions 1–9 are missing:

https://github.com/ietf-ribose/relaton-data-ids/blob/main/data/draft-leiba-imap-implement-guide-10.yaml

@ronaldtse
Copy link

Ha ha ha... You have a good eye... I don't have an answer 😉

I think we will require some help here, the version number is likely not "enforced". I suspect the BibXML Service should just accept that version numbers may not always be contiguous.

@rjsparks is the proposed behavior appropriate?

@strogonoff
Copy link
Author

Non-contiguous versions are not a problem for the service, just making sure data didn’t get lost during processing and isn’t supposed to be available

@rjsparks
Copy link
Member

Short answer: Yes, there will be versions missing, and that's ok.

The datatracker doesn't have the metadata for some early versions of very old drafts, so it can't say who the authors were.

In this particular case, we do have the older drafts in the id-archive and at some point we'll backfill the datatracker with metadata based on them. At that point the bibxml for these older versions could be pushed to the service.

In other cases, we do not have the original material in the id-archive, and will never be able to really create an accurate bibxml entry for that material.

@rjsparks
Copy link
Member

I just checked and the older service also doesn't have bibxml for the older versions of that particular Leiba draft.

@strogonoff
Copy link
Author

Closing (data is missing in authoritative source). For the record, @ronaldtse, I don’t think missing versions mean we should omit superseding relations (#6).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants