[DDI-SRG] [Fwd: Re: Version Number Restriction]

[I-Lin Kuo]

Sorry I haven't been at meetings lately, so I might be raising some issue
which was already discussed.

I have a question about the two version format proposals -- what difference
does it make in linking behavior? If the version is to be treated as a
string and not parsed, then I would prefer J's as that has more flexibility.
On the other hand, if the version is to be broken up into its parts and
compared, and then some action taken by DDI based whether one version is
earlier or later than another, then I think Achim's proposal is better, as I
don't really know how to compare versions 1.a 1.A and 1.1. More
specifically, what effect does the form of the version have on reference
resolution?

On 9/27/07, Wendy Thomas <wlt at pop.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Just to add a bit of discussion from the call after Achim needed to leave.
> The general intent of the flexibility was that we didn't want to ask
> people to change versioning structures currently in use. This may not be
> an issue. Also, determinations of late binds must be transparent. Early
> binds are easy as they provide a specific version number.
>
> Given this immediate response, I'm going to change this from resolved to
> feedback.
>
> wendy
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Joachim Wackerow wrote:
>
> > Next try. The email went only to J.
> >
> > Achim
> >
>
> Wendy L. Thomas                          Phone: +1 612.624.4389
> Data Access Core Director                Fax:   +1 612.626.8375
> Minnesota Population Center              Email: wlt at pop.umn.edu
> University of Minnesota
> 50 Willey Hall
> 225 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> _______________________________________________
> DDI-SRG mailing list
> DDI-SRG at icpsr.umich.edu
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/mailman/listinfo/ddi-srg
>



-- 
I-Lin Kuo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-srg/attachments/20070927/008815b7/attachment.html