OK.  I’m beginning to get the hang of this “x.y” version numbering.

In the red corner, we have the view that when “y” is zero, it means “approved” while when “y” is anything else, it means “unapproved draft”.  So for example 1.0, 2.0 etc. are approved, 1.1, 3.127 are draft.  To put it another way, the “y” has an implicit second meaning.

In the blue corner, we have the view that metadata properties about version and approval status should not be crunched together into one element.  So any version can be draft or approved; and “x” means a major revision, “y” means a minor revision.  So both 1.0 and 3.127 could be either approved or draft – you can only tell by looking at the “status” metadata.  To put it another way, it is all explicit and unambiguous.

Personally, I’m not keen on boxing.  So I’ll leave it to someone else to fight this one, especially since there is no hope of finding a neutral referee.  And, also like boxing, I don’t think it matters hugely – what does matter is that the rules are clear in any given bout (sorry, boxing fans).

Marc Fresko

My tuppence worth….

When a new document is created we classify it as 0.1, when changes are made and have been submitted to the appropriate governance group this version increases so 0.2, 0.3 and so on.  When it has been ratified it becomes version 1.0.

We review most Policies yearly, so if there are any changes it would become 1.1, 1.2 etc.  Again second time it has been ratified it then becomes 2.0.

This changes every year and we retain all previous ratified versions.  Locally, I have retained the “draft” versions because I often receive requests for who wanted this in the policy etc, however we now have a section which is huge that shows the changes, including, when, what it was, what it is, who by and who approved, thereby and in theory removing the queries.

In response to Marc’s question of Where does it come from?  Who says? – this is something that has always been in effect in the NHS and is seen as something most people can master quite easily, although you should see some of the number of draft versions that we have, I think the highest I have seen was V6.23 – every minor change was classed as a draft!

I am perplexed: this and other contributions seem to be  based on an assumption that “version 1.0 means final”.  Why so? 

Actually, many version numbering schemes rely on the notion that of major and minor revisions.  Just one example: the latest published (i.e. approved) e-GMS (a UK government publication) is at v3.1.  This numbering scheme is completely incompatible with the idea that “version 1.0 means final” – but it is also much better.  Approval and versioning are simply two different concepts.

So, again I ask  why this assumption exists…  Where does it come from?  Who says?

Marc Fresko

From: The Information and Records Management Society mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Kurilecz
Sent: 02 July 2013 19:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fwd: [RECORDS-MANAGEMENT-UK] Query re. Version Control & taking documents through a Committee Process

meant to send to the list

--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
http://twitter.com/RAINbyte
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAINbyte/
http://paper.li/RAINbyte/rainbyte
http://pinterest.com/pakurilecz/archives/
http://pinterest.com/pakurilecz/records-management/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterakurilecz
Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]

For any technical queries re JISC please email [log in to unmask] For any content based queries, please email [log in to unmask]

DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then immediately and permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-mail may be monitored by Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust in accordance with current regulations.

This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses currently known to the Trust, however the recipient is responsible for virus-checking before opening messages and attachments.

Unless otherwise stated, any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust.

As a public body, the Trust may be required to disclose this email and or any response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless the information in the email and or any response is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.