Agreed on everything. Unless something has changed significantly, just
incrementing the minor version number is the most easily recognisable.
(Eg Zeerex was 1.9, but my proposals will make it backwards incompatable,
thus I feel it warrants a 2.0 (eg the renaming of the 'set'
> > implying version 1.0, but does what does that mean -- that it's the
> > dc set for version 1.0 of srw/cql, or that it's version 1.0 of the
> > dc set?
> Very, very definitely the latter. Proof by example: if we decide we
> > http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/context-sets/dc/v1.1/ implying version
> 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.)
> > http://www.loc.gov/zing/cql/context-sets/dc/v1/ to signify that it's
> > still version 1 of the dc set.
> Since the DC set is under the LoC namespace, that's up to you as the
> LoC representative. But I think that faceted version numbers (1.0,
> 1.1, 2.0 etc.) are more usual.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I