Introduce ContentType as Blob vs Zarr and rename blobDateModified to contentDateModified #220
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…contentDateModified This is just an initial attempt open for discussion. I ran into "blobDateModified" in a zarr metadata and it raised my eyebrow since that is not really appropriate and confusing. Hence I decided to look into generalization. I also thought that it would be valuable to make "type" of the content Asset points to explicit, although that could lead to inconsistencies since information is somewhat redundant with encodingFormat and potentially could also be deduced from contenUrl since we have different end points on S3, etc. Nevertheless I think it might be better to make it explicit. Or at least we have to rename blobDateModified. - ContenType name is quite suboptimal since there is a standard HTTP header https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Type and thus we could potential confusion. But we should keep it a "Type" (not e.g. a Class) to be consistent with other type definitions among models. So the other part we could try to vary is "Content". Possible alternatives are "Object", "Data", "Resource" - ATM we call all Zarrs just Zarr but it is a "ZarrFolder" really. I wonder if it would be time to start to introduce differentiation here by making it "ZarrFolder", as later we might get "ZarrHDF5" or alike
yarikoptic
force-pushed
the
rf-contentType2
branch
from
6d3b5ff
to
ddd77da
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #220 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.66% 97.61% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 1798 1806 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 1756 1763 +7
- Misses 42 43 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
i'm fine with something like this being in the database, but not sure about changing the metadata model. perhaps we can brainstorm when we meet. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This is just an initial attempt open for discussion. @satra please chime in
I ran into "blobDateModified" in a zarr metadata and it raised my eyebrow since that is not really appropriate and confusing. Hence I decided to look into generalization. I also thought that it would be valuable to make "type" of the content Asset points to explicit, although that could lead to inconsistencies since information is somewhat redundant with encodingFormat and potentially could also be deduced from contenUrl since we have different end points on S3, etc.
Nevertheless I think it might be better to make it explicit. Or at least we have to rename blobDateModified.
ContenType name is quite suboptimal since there is a standard HTTP header https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Type and thus we could potential confusion.
But we should keep it a "Type" (not e.g. a Class) to be consistent with other type definitions among models.
So the other part we could try to vary is "Content". Possible alternatives are "Object", "Data", "Resource"
ATM we call all Zarrs just Zarr but it is a "ZarrFolder" really. I wonder if it would be time to start to introduce differentiation here by making it "ZarrFolder", as later we might get "ZarrHDF5" or alike