- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:23:39 +0200
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Michael A Squillace schrieb: >> 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. > Understood. > >> Hmm. What's the version then for the Schema document (the core of EARL)? >> The schema document would then be titled >> "EARL 1.0 Schema 1.0"? :-) > For now, its version is 1.0 and its title is EARL Schema 1.0. Actually, it is "Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 Schema", in short: "EARL 1.0 Schema", not "EARL Schema 1.0". So to me this looks like the (unversioned) schema document for EARL (the vocabulary) 1.0. We will have to rename it to "Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) Schema 1.0". >> 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"? > Precisely, except that the title of the core schema is still EARL Schema > 1.0. see above > The other option, of course, is to not version the vocabulary itself at all > and version only the schema. This seems misleading, though, since the > vocabulary is indeed made up of multiple specifications and, therefore, > would change if one of the specs changed. I'm not sure what W3C guidelines > about versioning come into play here. Will look into this before tomorrow's > call. Yep -- 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 14:24:13 UTC