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

RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV:bas eline resource type values

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:31:35 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1033E5A72@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "DeltaV (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
It is important to distinguish descriptive text that we
add to the protocol document (which is read by humans, and which
can take advantage of the fuzzy distinctions that humans can make),
from protocol elements, which are used by the software (clients
and servers) we write.  We use the terms "working resource" and
"version controlled resource" and "checked out resource" when we
organize and document the protocol for human readers.  The question
at hand is whether those fuzzy distinctions are appropriate for use
at runtime by software that we write (i.e. clients and servers).

I'll also observe that there is a certain level of fuzziness
that is not useful to even a human (i.e. is more likely to be
misunderstood than it is to make clear).

As for the issue of obtuseness (and who is displaying it),
I'll probably avoid that subject altogether (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:01 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; DeltaV (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and
DAV:bas eline resource type values


No, no, no!!!!

We're not asking software to automatically distinguish what we call a
difference in type, vs what we call a difference in state.  That kind of
decision-making is, at present, a human activity.  We're capable of saying
"checkin/checkout is a change of state, not type", even if software cannot.

Geoff, don't be obtuse about this.  We can make fuzzy distinctions, because
we're humans designing the deltaV spec in order that the way it works makes
sense to us.  Help us make DeltaV make sense to _humans_.  AND THEN humans
can write the programs that interoperate with each other.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:48 AM
> To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and
> DAV:bas eline resource type values
>
>
> If you believe there is a useful line drawn between "resource state"
> and "resource type", then it is necessary to unambiguously define "state"
> and
> "type" (in particular, in a way that allows you to distinguish one
> from the other).
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:00 PM
> To: Clemm, Geoff; DeltaV (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and
> DAV:bas eline resource type values
>
>
> If you believe that whether a resource is under version control
> or not, is a
> matter of state, then leave it OUT of resourcetype.  It's not called
> "resourcestate".
>
> Version, version History, and others are still types.
>
> But draw a line somewhere.
>
> lisa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:07 AM
> > To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and
> > DAV:bas eline resource type values
> >
> >
> > I think Tim's point was that if "under version control"
> > (e.g. "version-controlled-resource") is part of
> > the "type" of a resource, then "checked-out" and "checked-in"
> > would equally usefully be considered as part of the type
> > (since the significantly affect what methods can be
> > applied to that resource).
> >
> > In each case, you have the same resource (i.e. when you
> > put a resource under version control, it is the same resource
> > but has some additional live properties and methods you can
> > apply to it).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 6:27 AM
> > To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> > Subject: AW: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV
> > :baseline resource type values
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von
> > > Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > My view of the world...
> > >
> > > Here's the list of elements that could appear in a
> > DAV:resourcetype.  Some
> > > of these can be combined to provide a really meaningful
> > experience for the
> > > client.  Obviously, some combinations are invalid.
> > >      <DAV:checked-in/>
> > >      <DAV:checked-out/>
> > >      <DAV:collection/>
> > >      <DAV:working-resource/>
> > >      <DAV:version-controlled-resource/>
> > >      <DAV:version/>
> > >      <DAV:version-history/>
> > >      <DAV:workspace/>
> > >      <DAV:version-controlled-configuration/>
> > >      <DAV:baseline/>
> > >      <DAV:activity/>
> > >
> >
> > What is your rationale for checked-in/out in the type? I think
> > I have missed something in the spec, since it feels like a
> > property to me.
> >
> > > So,
> > > <DAV:resourcetype>
> > >      <DAV:activity/>
> > > </DAV:resourcetype
> > >
> > > would be good, that is, not surprisingly, an activity resource.
> > >
> > > <DAV:resourcetype>
> > >      <DAV:checked-out/>
> > >      <DAV:version-controlled-resource/>
> > >      <DAV:collection/>
> > >      <DAV:workspace/>
> > > </DAV:resourcetype>
> > >
> > > would be good too, it is a checked-out, version-controlled
> > resource for a
> > > workspace collection.  And so on.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 13:26:48 GMT

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