repo:createdDate vs repo:createDate

[jimaldous]

Asked via email to Grp-XDM-API-WGs 10 May 2018: There appears to be a discrepancy between the following:

• https://github.com/adobe/xdm/blob/master/schemas/external/repo/common.schema.json has “repo:createDate” (‘create’, not ‘created’).
• https://github.com/adobe/xdm/blob/master/schemas/external/repo/asset.schema.json has “repo:createdDate” (‘created’, not ‘create’), as do 5 other schema files and 14 example files in the schemas directory.

May I assume that common.schema.json is in error and that “repo:createdDate” is the correct property name?

NOTE: Leonard Rosenthol commented via email (before this issue was created) that he thinks that "repo:createDate" would be the correct one "since it is based on XMP". I was not aware that the repository metadata concepts were specifically based on XMP.

Whichever direction this goes, I recommend that the tense of both the "create" and "modify" metadata be aligned. (In other words, I recommend that we either choose "repo:createDate" and "repo:lastModifyDate" or choose "repo:createdDate" and "repo:lastModifiedDate". (Choosing the later would clearly require the least change to existing schemas.)

Current situation, looking only in the 'schemas' directory:

• repo:createDate: Found only in external/repo/common.schema.json
• repo:createdDate: Found in assets/asset.schema.json, assets/image.schema.json, assets/video.schema.json, content/componentized-page.schema.json, external/repo/asset.schema.json, and external/repo/directory.schema.json, and 14 example files.
• repo:lastModifyDate: Not found
• repo:lastModifiedDate: Found in assets/asset.schema.json, assets/image.schema.json, assets/video.schema.json, content/componentized-page.schema.json, external/repo/asset.schema.json, external/repo/common.schema.json, and external/repo/directory.schema.json, and 14 example files.

For comparison:

• xmp:createDate: Found in assets/asset.schema.json and 5 example files.
• xmp:modifyDate: Found in assets/asset.schema.json and 5 example files.

[lrosenthol]

The original “Core Asset Data Model”, on which the core asset and other schemas were defined, started from XMP. As such, those definitions take precidence.

[jimaldous]

Thanks, Leonard. The issue remains... the XDM spec currently has repo:createDate defined in one place and repo:createdDate defined other places.

By what process does this get resolved?

Options to achieve consistency appear to be:

• repo:createDate, repo:modifyDate (most directly related to XMP naming)
• repo:createDate, repo:lastModifyDate (close to existing, but lastModify sounds a bit odd)
• repo:createdDate, repo:lastModifiedDate (least change to current spec, by far)

On a related note: I see that xdm:repositoryCreatedBy and xdm:repositoryLastModifiedBy are defined in four different schema.json files. Do those come from XMP? I am a bit surprised that such metadata is not defined closer to "common" in the schema inheritance hierarchy. In any case, is there no need for a corresponding "repo" version of such metadata? (repo:createdBy and repo:lastModifiedBy, anyone?)

[cdegroot-adobe]

@kstreeter @trieloff @lrosenthol - I think it would make sense to roll this into the next milestone build which is just 2 business days away. I am happy to push the buttons on a PR to make this happen but I need you to decide on what is the right option going forward.

[jbeckert]

Is there any consensus to add a "repo:id" to the common properties? Maybe move out "repo:assetID" and use the "repo:id"? Or is the semantics of "repo:assetID" different than that of an envisioned "repo:id"? I see examples throughout the internal wiki that already makes use of "repo:id" as if it was a standard property.

[jimaldous]

@jbeckert, resolving an ambiguity regarding "repo:assetID" and "repo:id" sounds like a great idea... but it probably deserves its own issue, don't you think? :) What "internal wiki" is there that is being used that is not the specification as defined at https://github.com/adobe/xdm?

[jbeckert]

@jimaldous I'm referring to the internal Confluence wiki. Simply search for "repo:id" (with quotes) and you'll see what I'm referring to. There seem to be assumptions that "repo:id" already exists or will exist soon. "Yes" to moving it into its own issue. I created a new issue #348

[trieloff]

After going through the history, it looks like repo:createdDate is the correct version.

I might have confused it with xmp:createDate (XMP also uses modifyDate), but repo: in general uses created* and modified* – not just for *Date but also for *By

[jimaldous]

Thanks, @trieloff. You mentioned *By. Once this is fixed, we will have repo:createdDate and repo:lastModifedDate defined in "external/repo/common.schema.json". It seems natural that we would also have repo:createdBy and repo:lastModifedBy right next to them in the same schema file. However, we have xdm:repositoryCreatedBy and xdm:repositoryLastModifiedBydefined in "content/content.schema.json". Is there a reason that these are treated differently? Why not repo:*By instead of xdm:repository*By?

[trieloff]

The repo schemas only follow whatever the ACP is defining (albeit in a buggy way – see above).

The xdm schemas are in our control and XDM contributors found it useful to track who edited something, in addition to the date, so the properties got introduced. I agree that they might be useful for ACP, too – but we need to bring it up to the ACP API working group, get it in there, and then we can take it out of XDM.

[cdegroot-adobe]

@trieloff - Who would be the approvers for this change in the ACP API WG? Lets add them to this and get it resolved one way or the other.

[trieloff]

That would be @ogoldman

[cdegroot-adobe]

@ogoldman - can you please provide your assessment of how to resolve this issue?

[lrosenthol]

Oliver and I have a proposal we are working through for how to resolve this - its' related to our discussion about setting up a separate git repo...

[ogoldman]

The repo property should be repo:CreateDate and repo:ModifyDate, in order to remain consistent with the existing XMP properties with related names and semantics.

[jimaldous]

I just looked over the state of assets in XDM to see if the attribute capitalization issue has been addressed yet and I noted that there remains a mix of repo:createDate and repo:createdDate. A quick search in the source code of the spec shows the following counts:

• repo:createDate in .md files: 59
• repo:createDate in .json files: 2
• repo:createdDate in .md files: 15
• repo:createdDate in .json files: 40
• repo:lastModifyDate in any file: 0
• repo:lastModifiedDate in any file: 116 Given that the ACP API spec uses repo:createdDate, I recommend changing all repo:createDate to repo:createdDate.

[fmeschbe]

So in the internal API specification we have repo:createdDate and repo:lastModifiedDate. So I tend to agree. I think the asset metadata might come up with more along the lines as indicated by @ogoldman due to XMP mapping.

I am not sure where this goes or should go from here. Maybe a PR @jimaldous ?

/cc @lrosenthol, @kstreeter