W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re (2): Component instead of Configuration/Baseline/Component

From: <Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:36:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200104261136.HAA03936@tux.w3.org>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:
> I am completely neutral on whether we use the term
> "configuration" or the term "component" to mean
> "a collection and all members of that collection".
> 
> I would still use the term "baseline" to mean 
> "component version", since the term baseline is
> commonly used, and it ties our concepts to common
> usage.
Acceptable. Perhaps we shouldn't be too puristic.
 
> Is anyone else either for or against switching from
> "configuration" to "component"?
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
Yesterday a posting told me that 15 is already availabe.
(For some time already it seems if I look at the DELTA-V page).
The introductory part on baselines is much clearer now.
Nevertheless I still would like to drop 'configuration' which
only appears in this context and replace it by 'component'.
As Geoff seems to be neutral on this topic, I really would
like to see at least one or two other opinions.

Cheers, Edgar
  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de [mailto:Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de]
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 5:42 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org 
> Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
> Subject: Component instead of Configuration/Baseline/Component
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I know that it's late and probably Geoff is busy rewriting 14.1 to produce
> 15, but nevertheless here I have a proposal which would make some concepts
> easier to understand IMHO.
> In 11 (Baseline feature) a couple of new terms appear:
> Configuration, meaning a tree of resources rooted at a root (:-) collection,
> a technical term.
> Baseline, a technical term which probably is just there because the feature
> is
> called like that, because basically it's just another word for
> 'configuration version'
> Components, a logical term which is used to rationalize subbaselines.
> So I would like to introduce just one new term: Component. And define it
> like
> the old Configuration (So Configuration disappears)
> Instead BASELINE-CONTROL use COMPONENT-CONTROL. The necessity for Baseline
> disappears. It's just a 'component version'.
> Subbaseline-set becomes subcomponent-set and so on.
> A 'Component feature' would show better I think what we want to gain than 
> 'Baseline feature'.
> So the beginning could e.g. be:
> 
> 11 COMPONENT FEATURE
> A "component" is a set of resources that consists of a root collection and
> all
> menbers of that root collection which aren't a component themselves. ...
> 
> This would just be a (Not so small I admit) editorial change. No different
> functionality.
> I hope I didn't miss something you can't do if you drop Configuration and
> Baseline.
> 
> Cheers, Edgar

-- 
edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
*          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Native Oberon.         *
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2001 07:36:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT