Versioning

[Doug Tody]

If this were true I agree it would be crazy.  But is a WD or PR a
"standard"?  I should think this would only apply to established
standards that are already deployed.  That is, to recommendations.
Perhaps the documents and standards folks should clarify.

Also, I don't think this is just limited to GWS; any DAL or DM standard
for example might also have to deal with this issue.

 	- Doug


On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Matthew Graham wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You might be aware that the Document Standards v1.2 PR has just completed its 
> RFC (http://www.ivoa.net/cgi-bin/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/DocStdRFC2). I raised 
> concerns about the proposed versioning scheme:
>
> "The document now states that there is an integer increment in the version 
> number in the case where subsequent versions are not backward compatible. "
>
> and the response that has been posted is:
>
> "The Committee agrees that the version numbering scheme is challenging when 
> dealing with namespaces and WSDL, and leads to the conclusion that when IVOA 
> standards describe web services or have associated XML schemas, with 
> namespaces that when changed, cause software to break, then these changes 
> must both be accompanied by an increment to the integer part of the document 
> and the associated "supplementary" files. This would not affect most of the 
> standards documents, and should not present any real logistical difficulty, 
> as there are a sufficient number of integers available to support any number 
> of revisions. "
>
> This has greatest impact for this working group (GWS but I am also 
> cross-posting to Semantics)  and essentially means that ALL (WD, PR, etc) 
> versions of our specs with WSDL/XML/RDF documents (anything with a namespace) 
> will only carry integer versions.
>
> So, for example, the progression of VOSpace 2.0 would actually proceed as:
>
> VOSpace 2 (first WD)
> VOSpace 3 (second WD)
> VOSpace 4 (third WD)
> VOSpace 5 (first PR)
> VOSpace 6 (second PR)
> VOSpace 7 (final PR)
> VOSpace 8 (REC)
>
> The next version would then VOSpace 9, etc.
>
> Although this is very much a procedural issue, I just wanted to flag it so 
> that everyone is aware and happy with it before I approve.
>
> 	Cheers,
>
> 	Matthew
>