RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version

["DULUC, Franck" <franck.duluc@airbus.com>]

I think synchronize.

For information, we faced the same issue with our internal XML companion file as we came to the requirement of managing version together with referencing the DTD from some of our tech pub contents.
The result is that we change identification and referencing only for major version (2.0, 3.0, ....). For minor version an attribute of our root element is the dedicated information container (version="3.1").

This applied to WebCGM and its XCF DTD is translating in the following for me:
	- Major change will occur only if profile is evolving, therefore syncjronize makes sense.
	- Minor changes (no profile changes) will occur only for editing/precision purposes.


Regards,

Franck DULUC
Technical Data Research Manager
Customer Services - SDND
AIRBUS France

Phone: +33 (0)5 61 18 19 16
Fax: +33 (0)5 61 93 59 44
mailto:franck.duluc@airbus.com

Address:
BP D0611, 316, route de Bayonne
31060 TOULOUSE Cedex, FRANCE







-----Message d'origine-----
De : Cruikshank, David W [mailto:david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com]
Envoyé : mardi 7 juin 2005 00:21
À : Lofton Henderson; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Objet : RE: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version


I agree and vote for syncronize.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:45 PM
To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] ISSUE: XCF version and WebCGM version


ISSUE:  Does the XCF version (attribute on <webcgm> element) match the 
WebCGM profile version, or is it independent?

DISCUSSION:  This was raised as a side question in the namespace URL thread:

>At 10:26 AM 6/4/2005 +0200, Dieter  Weidenbrück wrote:
>One question:
>This is the namespace for the XML Companion File only, right?
>We decided that the version of the XCF is independent from the WebCGM
>version to allow for updates of the DTD without having to change
>the profile (Cologne).
>So what version number do we use for the DTD? 1.0?

The pre-Munich draft said only, "Represents the version of the WebCGM 
companion file."  The issue was discussed again at Munich, and the editing 
directives indicate that it was decided to synchronize XCF 'version' and 
the hosting WebCGM profile specification (XCF is published as a part of 
WebCGM profile).  The post-Munich CD text says, "Represents the version of 
the WebCGM specification. The value is set to 2.0 for this specification."

OPTIONS:

1.) Synchronized, per 2/2005 Munich decision.
2.) Change (back) to independent.

RECOMMENDATION:  Option 1, synchronized.




This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee. It may contain
privileged information. If you are not the addressee you must not copy,
distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it. If you have
received it in error please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
Security Notice: all e-mail, sent to or from this address, may be
accessed by someone other than the recipient, for system management and
security reasons. This access is controlled under Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Lawful Business Practises.