# Re: Versioning?

Simon E Spero (ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu)
Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:40:41 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: William A. Weems: "URN Usage"
- Previous message: Richard Wiggins: "Re: URN Usage"
- In reply to: Chris Weider: "Re: Versioning?"
- Next in thread: Chris Weider: "Re: Versioning?"

    Message-Id: <9309162240.AA20547@tipper>

    To: "Chris Weider" <clw@merit.edu>

    Subject: Re: Versioning?

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Sep 93 14:19:33 EDT."

                 <9309161819.AA13710@merit.edu>

    Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 18:40:41 -0400

    From: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>

"Chris Weider" <clw@merit.edu> writes:
>
>The only consensus was that version number would not appear explicitly
>as a semantic component of the URN. Other than that it is up to the naming
>authority to decide when to assign a new URN. However, some of the inconvenience

That wasn't consensus - that was you hitting me over the head with a large
stick! I'm still convinced that versioning is part of the name of an object;
I also became convinced that I wasn't convince everybody no matter how
convincing I felt my conviction to be. It's a few dead clowns short of a
showstopper, but I can live without versions if there is an absolutely
overwhelming consensus against them.

The reason why I rate the lack of versioning slightly below show-stopper level
is that you can create another UR.* containing just the URN and the Version,
and never ever deal with naked URNs. However, I can foresee this causing all
sorts of interoperability problems and confusion. Remember what happens when
you start creating too many optional profiles...

Simon

- Next message: William A. Weems: "URN Usage"
- Previous message: Richard Wiggins: "Re: URN Usage"
- In reply to: Chris Weider: "Re: Versioning?"
- Next in thread: Chris Weider: "Re: Versioning?"