Talk:Discussion on Versioning

testing this clever little discussion feature...

Discussing the Open Questions
My comments/suggestions as follows: --Rodche 14:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) No. At least not on the BioPAX level, but rather on OWL/RDF. I strongly believe, this should be up to data providers, their responsibility (sure, their "consumers" could and actually do kindly encourage them to do their best...). For independent data integrators, It's often unavoidable anyway and more practical to preprocess provider's data (clean-up) before it goes to the system (e.g., sql, triple storage, or SPARQL endpoint)
 * 2) Should we be so precise?... - did not understand this...
 * 3) To the first answer - Yes. To the second -  editors/community decide, BioPAX specs/docs will reflect.
 * 4) Yes
 * 5) We currently use Mercurial (Hg) versioning system @SF.net (used to be CVS, no SVN). We simply should create a new tag (better not using branches for this purpose) with every (minor or major) release and, yes, we then create the alias URL (under www.biopax.org/) for each version. Now, - e.g., a revision from the default branch can be seen here (or here); and  the latest is here.
 * 6) no idea (it depends...)

Discussing the release URL schema
I would suggest the following:
 * http://www.biopax.org/biopax-level3/ -> the latest (level3)
 * http://www.biopax.org/v0.93/biopax-level3/
 * http://www.biopax.org/v2.0/biopax-level3/

alternatively - etc... --Rodche 14:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.biopax.org/biopax/level3/
 * http://www.biopax.org/biopax/level3/v1.0