[UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling Numbering of the UASG Documents

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

I would expect to be able to leave the date off the link and get the 
/*latest */file version. Depending on technology that gets implemented 
with soft link, redirection or duplicate copy, but for the user, that is 
immaterial, all that counts is being able to ignore the revision date.

I would expect each document to carry such a generic link to the 
"latest" version in a header or a note somehwere, so that no matter what 
copy of the document you are accessing (based some reference somewhere) 
you are always able to discover the existence of later versions.

I would expect the revision notes to have a link for each date, so one 
can backtrack versions without going through the archive.

Otherwise, this is beginning to take shape.
A./

On 1/24/2019 9:45 PM, Don Hollander wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> How’s this?
>
>   * Document Number (e.g. UASG000) – this will be maintained as a
>     consistent reference name for a document.  NB: No hyphen in the
>     document number.
>   * Document Short Title (e.g. UASG000 Inventory of Material) – this
>     will be included in the file name.
>   * Document Language (e.g. UASG000 Inventory of Material EN) – this
>     will be included in the file name.
>   * Document Revision – (e.g. UASG000 Inventory of Material  EN
>     2019-01-25) This will be based on the publication date and
>     represented in the file name as yyyy-mm-dd.  It will also be
>     included within the document.
>   * Document Link – (e.g.
>     https://uasg.tech/documents/UASG000-Inventory-of-Material EN 2019
>     01 25.pdf
>     <https://uasg.tech/documents/UASG-000-Inventory-of-Material%20EN%202019%2001%2025.pdf>
>     ) This will be based on the language of the document and is what’s
>     published on the UASG.Tech website and will retrieve the latest
>     official version of the document.
>   * Archives: The UASG.tech website will include a repository of
>     deprecated versions of documents that will be stored and displayed
>     based on its file name (which will include the published date)
>   * Revision Details: For most documents we will maintain a table at
>     the end showing a summary of revisions.  Where a document is used
>     a brochure, this will not be done.
>
>
>   Revision Notes:
>
> 2019-01-25
>
> 	
>
> Added Document Naming and Storage Conventions
>
> 2018-12-25
>
> 	
>
> Added expected review dates
>
> *From:*UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tex
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 January 2019 1:23 PM
> *To:* 'Asmus Freytag' <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>; ua-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling Numbering of the UASG 
> Documents
>
> Thanks for the clarification Asmus. I agree with you, brochures 
> shouldn’t have revision histories.
>
> I had noticed the one place where Jim used the word “reservation” and 
> thought your second sentence was independent from the first, and 
> commenting on that-
>
> “I have reservations about embedding text like "wp-content/uploads/" 
> in the official document link”
>
> So it’s all good.
>
> Tex
>
> *From:*UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Asmus Freytag
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2019 4:10 PM
> *To:* ua-discuss at icann.org <mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling Numbering of the UASG 
> Documents
>
> On 1/24/2019 2:55 PM, Tex wrote:
>
>     PS: Brochures, by their nature are different from the kind of
>     reports and formal documents that need careful version tracking in
>     the document. I disagree with Jim on his reservation.
>
> This was about whether revisions are documented inside the document. 
> Don, suggested not, and I would agree. I think of brochures as a type 
> of document, not a technology, but may have misunderstood something.
>
> A./
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190124/2a850d13/attachment.html>