I don't think 2.0.0 needs to replaced everywhere, but I think that the version number should appear at least once in the word document, so someone who has a copy (outside of the git repository) can identify the version. Perhaps the second line in the document: Committee Specification Draft 01 is the right place and should become (the Draft is 02?): Committee Specification Draft 02 (2.0.0-beta.2018.09.26) The third line could also be updated with the revision's date 26 September 2018 Also it would good to add a note that remains in place until the specification if finalized in the version description that states throughout the document the version value "2.0.0" is used, but producers SHOULD use the version value "2.0.0-beta.YYYY.MM.DD" (found in the second line of this document) in place of "2.0.0" to denote the specific draft revision of the SARIF file. Jim On 09/28/2018 06:51 PM, Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) wrote: > The only changes from what Jim proposed are: > > 1. I will not go through the spec after each TC meeting, changing all occurrences of "2.0.0" to "2.0.0-beta.2018.09.26" or whatever. The spec will still say that the only valid value for version is "2.0.0", but the schema will say the right number. > > 2. Michael, there's an additional Step 7 where you publish the new schema to schemastore.org. > > Thanks, > Larry > >