[oslc-core] OSLC specification version numbering guidance

[Olivier Berger]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:14:20 -0500, Steve K Speicher <sspeiche at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> As new specifications are being developed (and possibly new working groups 
> on the horizon), I wanted to get a basic policy in place regarding spec 
> version numbers.
> 
> Here are some alternatives:
> 
> #1 Coordinate numbers across all domains
> 
> Set guidance that a WG spec will match its version number with "nearest" 
> Core version number that it is based off of.
> If there is a need for minor spec update before next major version number, 
> using n.0 and then n.1.  Take a concrete example, say a spec (Automation) 
> starts now and is based on Core 2.0, it will be Automation 2.0.
> 
> #2 Provide loose guidance, workgroups can start at 1.0
> 
> State that if it is truelly the first, then just call it such.  Take 
> example above, you'll have Automation 1.0 based on Core 2.0.
> 
> #3 Say nothing
> 
> I'm in favor #1, stating it as guidance and not a hard rule. 
> 
> Are there any concerns with this type of guidance? 
> Does anyone have a recommendation other than #1?
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
> 

-- 
Olivier BERGER 
http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)