W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Making "LABEL" optional

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:57:34 -0700
To: "Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IAEBKAABDEIIBHMILFBPGEINCAAA.lisa@xythos.com>
One of the very differences between a source-management system and a
[simple] document-management system with versioning is that the simple
doc-mgmt system does not have any concept of a consistent set of revisions.

For example, let's say EJW wanted to keep all WebDAV related drafts in a
WebDAV repository.  Is there any concept of "consistent set" between the ACL
draft, the versioning draft, and the various advanced collections drafts?
Only minimally if at all -- and any desire to see what changes were made at
the same time can be satisfied by looking at the dates of the older
versions.  Such a repository would be useful, keeping a history of document
changes around, yet it would have no strong need for labeling.

In this scenario, comments could serve any need for user-readable info on
previous versions.  For example version 10 of the versioning draft might
have a "last call" comment on it.   Note that the "last call" version of the
versioning draft has nothing to do with the "last call" version of the acls
draft.  There is very little to be gained from supporting labeling when
there is no concept of a consistent set of revisions, and I argue that this
is the case in many simple doc-mgmt systems which support versioning.

Is there a justification for supporting labelling that does not require
advanced source-related concepts like "consistent set of revisions", or that
cannot be satisfied by using the version's comment or date properties?

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
[mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim
Amsden/Raleigh/IBM
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 8:48 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Making "LABEL" optional



Labels have a role separate from support from baselining. They're just a
mechanism for distinguishing revisions that is controled by the client.
Without labels, clients that want to get a consistent set of revisions will
have to remember all the server-generated URLs and/or version names.
Although possible, this is state that the server should generally be
providing for clients so they don't have to persist this kind of
information.




Since many document management clients don't want or need baselining
or configuration functionality, the document management versioning
servers do not want to have to provide the infrastructure
(i.e. labels) for it.

Cheers,
Geoff

   Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:38:26 -0700
  From: "Henry K. Harbury" <hharbury@assetvalue.com>

   I agree with Jim - but I would also add that labels provide more than
just
  a human readable name, they provide the ability to define a unique
  configuration of the resources in the repository.  One often does not want
  to get everything from the repository, just the subset of resources in the
  configuration identified by a unique label.  Baselines provide this type
of
  functionality in advanced versioning and labels provide it in core.  If
  labels are removed from core, how is this accomplished?
  -- Henry.
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2000 12:03:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT