Hi, Steven,
Glad you found the proposal worthy. The incrementing of a
filename from 00 to 01 to 02... (not version number, which applies to
specifications themselves, not the filenames of other documents) would be a
reflection of just about any changes that are made short of the insignificant
(correcting a capitalization error). The filename for a specification would not
only contain the OASIS- or CS-, etc., prefix, it would be numbered to match the
specification's version number. If the version were 2.1.2, the filename
would end in -020102.xml. Thus, double-digits for things like statements of
work or white papers, and 6-digit renderings of the version numbers of a
specification.
The other elements of a filename may or may not apply,
depending on what kind of document is contained in the file. A specification
could end up with an OASIS-LegalXML-ECF-CourtFiling-030101.xml filename, but no
White Paper would ever have an OASIS- prefix, since we would not seek OASIS
adoption of such a work product as an OASIS Standard.
I tried to show how the various prefixes might be used, but
not together, by not allowing one to have a - before the
[ ] unless it is allowed as the 2nd or subsequent
part of the filename. Thus [CS]- shows a filename can start with this if it is
an "OASIS Committee Specification" (=Legal XML's "Recommended
Specification"), but not [INFO-DRAFT]- since that indicates a different
type of document is in the file it names.
Please let me know if you have further questions. I'm
copying this to the Technical Committee list, so others can see this exchange.
Regards,
Roger
Roger
Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Taylor, Steven (CAA)
[mailto:Steven.Taylor@courts.sa.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002
4:04 PM
To: 'Winters, Roger'
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed Procedures on Version Numberi ng and File
Naming
I agree with your proposal, its very thorough and mirrors
what software package suppliers do.
Just one question - when does a version "00"
change to a version "01" (major revision number). Is it when it
has been adopted by OASIS, or at the "CS" or "PS" stage ?
My preference is the former. In that way we will know that anything with a
"00" in the major revision number has not yet been adopted as a
standard. (I guess we will also know because "OASIS" will not be the
prefix.)
Courts Administration Authority
-----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger
[mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2002
2:59
To:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Proposed Procedures on Version Numbering and File Naming
From the Minutes circulated today there was an item
concerning proposed version numbering for specifications (see below). Shane
Durham and I discussed that proposal and decided to develop it as a proposed
rule on version numbering and file naming. I have developed that proposal
(attached to this email in Word format) and Shane was kind enough to
review it and make suggestions. The scope for this covers specifications,
other deliverables, and the file names they would have, e.g., when
published to the TC's Web site. The file names will serve as an aid to and
indicator of version management. There is also guidance in this
proposal on how to interpret the relationship between different specifications
based on their version numbers and some suggestions on how to refer to and
compare them in normal English, that is, without citing the numbers.
Please note that the author of a document does not have
to master the methodology nor memorize how to construct a file name. That is a
service provided by the Editor, based on a request for guidance or a copy of an
initial draft or new version of a document or file.
I suggest that this proposal be an item for discussion
and vote at the face-to-face meeting in Las Vegas, December 12-13. (The TC
Chairs will, of course, set up the Agenda.) Of course, comments on the Listserv
in the meantime would contribute to the discussion and perhaps make the need
for further discussion at the meeting minimal. If approved there, as-is or
with modifications, I assume the same method John Greacen described today for
the Minutes--unless
there are objections to them, the decisions recorded in the Minutes will
become final--would apply.
Please let me know of any questions, etc. Please post
comments to the Listserv.
Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee
Legal XML Member Section of OASIS
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
Mr. Shane Durham
discussed versioning rules for Technical Committee specifications. He
recommended a three-level version numbering scheme. Changes to the first
number would indicate non-compatibility with prior versions. Changes to
the second number would indicate that the newer version would parse prior
versions, but not vice versa. Changes to the third number would reflect
insignificant changes, such as adding content to replace holder other changes
that do not
reflect a change in the XML. A trivial example would be adding a space or
comment to the DTD. Ms. Robin Gibson pointed out that some documents may
not reflect this new rule and their version numbers will NOT be updated.
Mr. Durham will
write this up, Mr. Winters will edit, and it will be sent to the list.