Re: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers

Dear ckm lovers, My preference is for your option 3. We have to make updates. Nobody is forced to change anything. Best regards Gunnar Den 2 okt 2015 06:11 skrev "Heather Leslie" < heather.les...@oceaninformatics.com>: > Hi everyone, > > > > I’m seeking community input around a conundrum that h

RE: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers

The versioning rules have been following. This is a use case that is testing them, testing our strategy. Excellent. What does specialisation add to this? We still have a changed MD5, new archetype ID, etc... Aargh. If we specialise, what happens when the next change comes along? Specialise the

Re: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers

Hi David, That is clearly a revision change1.0->1.1 but is not a breaking change for data already carried within the system i.e queries for tilt using the degree symbol will still work. This is is not inherently any different from the situation where we can add codes to an internal codelist, e.g

Re: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers

Hence my earlier proposal... On 19/10/2015 09:18, David Moner wrote: 2015-10-16 3:22 GMT+02:00 Heather Leslie >: ·It means that new implementers can use the corrected v1 revision and we don’t have to create a v2 for a relatively trivial p

Re: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers

2015-10-16 3:22 GMT+02:00 Heather Leslie < heather.les...@oceaninformatics.com>: > · It means that new implementers can use the corrected v1 > revision and we don’t have to create a v2 for a relatively trivial problem; > existing vendor implementations can remain unchanged or they can choo