- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:52:37 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Clarification: My comments were not directly about the requirements document, but about versioning of our docs in general. I only stimbled about it when reading the requirement doc's abstract. Michael A Squillace schrieb: >> EARL 1.0 Schema. Is it the schema document (the core) for the 1.0 >> version of EARL? Or the 1.0 version of EARL Schema? > It's the version of the entire suite of vocabularies. Hmm. What's the version then for the Schema document (the core of EARL)? > The requirements > document applies to the vocabulary, which we agreed was defined over > multiple specs. Yes, I don't object that. >> Do we also want to version e.g. Content-in-RDF? >> What if Content-in-RDF gets a new version number, say 1.1. Would that >> make EARL the vocabulary version 1.1, even if EARL Schema is not changed? > Good point. My own view is that all of the documents should be versioned The schema document would then be titled "EARL 1.0 Schema 1.0"? :-) > and that, when one changes, the version of the suite changes. The suite is > not defined entirely in terms of the core vocabulary (i.e. the schema) nor > should the version be defined in that way. Let's say, currently we have "EARL 1.0 Schema" version 1.0 "Content-in-RDF" version 1.0 ... in summa: EARL (the vocabulary) 1.0 Now, only Content-in-RDF gets updated to version 1.1. Would that make EARL (the vocabulary) also go to version 1.1? How then would the schema document be titled? "EARL 1.1 Schema 1.0"? -- Johannes Koch Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT Web Compliance Center Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 13:53:11 UTC