Since we agree that cql and srw will have independent versions, how will a
client convey the cql version?
For that matter if cql is used outside of srw, how is the version to be
indicated?
And the cql context set -- do we assume that its version is the same as the
cql version?
> > At http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/cql1-1/context-sets.html the
> > dc set (as currently drafted) has identifier
> > http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/context-sets/dc/v1.1/ implying version
> > 1.1. But it's the same definition.
>
> I think that's a bug. If the set hasn't changed, there's no need to
> change its version number (and its potentially misleading to do so.)
Ok, I've set the identifier back to
http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/dc-indexes/v1.0/
Of course that means back to "dc-indexes" but that shouldn't matter, these
identifiers are supposed to be opaque.
> ... But I think that faceted version numbers (1.0,
> 1.1, 2.0 etc.) are more usual.
No I wasn't concerned about that, but I was wondering if perhaps bath should
be 2.0 instead of 1.1, since it is a fairly significant change.
--Ray
|