On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Renato Iannella wrote:
> > 2) The 22 December union draft is called "DCMES Qualifiers 1.0". At
> > the AC meeting in Frankfurt, Tom summarized several alternative
> > approaches to versioning and suggested that the set of qualifiers
> > should merely be time-stamped, as it will evolve through time (see
> > http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-ac/2000-01/0018.html). About
> > two-thirds of the AC members present in Frankfurt voted for this
> > approach in a non-binding straw poll after the presentation, and Stu
> > has said that he also supports this approach. There does not seem
> > to be time to hold a formal vote in the AC in time for the
> > qualifiers. For the purposes of the February qualifier release,
> > then, we propose to drop the version number "1.0" and simply let the
> > date of the document serve as the version until such time as we
> > discuss and approve a more formalized way of expressing version.
>
> DCMI should have ONE versioning system. We currently have one based
> on numbers. These work fine and are well accepted. I can see no
> reason to change.
No decision has been made that would be "changed". We have a
versioning system based on numbers for elements but not for
qualifiers. At the Frankfurt AC meeting, nobody suggested that this
question had already been decided.
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|