W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: General Comment on the Requirements Spec

From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:08:27 PST
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970215210827.009b1400@pop-server.wrc.xerox.com>
To: Fabio Vitali <fabio@cs.unibo.it>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
At 02:56 AM 2/14/97 PST, Fabio Vitali wrote:

>4.9. Versioning
>
>In the following discussion, "versioned resource" means a resource that
>has the structure of a directed acyclic graph, each node of which is
>a version. "Version" means a node in this structure, which is itself
>a resource. Each version typically stands in a "derived from"
>relationship to its predecessor(s).
>
>4.9.1. General Principles
>
>4.9.1.1. Stableness of versions. Most versioning systems are intended to
>provide an accurate record of the history of evolution of a document.
>This accuracy is ensured by the fact that a version eventually becomes
>"frozen" and immutable. Once a version is frozen, further changes will
>create new versions rather than modifying the original. In order for
>caching and persistent references to be properly maintained, a client
>must be able to determine that a version has been frozen. Any successful
>attempt to retrieve a frozen version of a resource will always retrieve
>exactly the same content, or return an error if that version (or the
>resource itself) are no longer available.
>[Removed mentions of URLs and HTTP Entity tags. Removed freezing behaviour
>for locked and unlocked resources]

This seems reasonable, although I know that some DMSs (intentionally) do not
enforce it.  It looks to me as though the WebDAV spec also does not enforce
it.  There is nothing to stop a client from requesting the same version id
for checkin as the version id it checked out, and there is nothing that says
the server should not comply with such a request.

>
>4.9.1.2. Policy-free Versioning. Haake and Hicks [5] have identified
>the notion of versioning styles (referred to here as versioning
>policies, to reflect the nature of client/server interaction) as one
>way to think about the different policies that versioning systems
>implement. Versioning policies include decisions on the shape of
>version histories (linear or branched), the granularity of change
>tracking, locking requirements made by a server, etc. The protocol
>should clearly identify the policies that it dictates and the
>policies that are left variable for the implementations, and
>work towards inter-operability across servers and clients with regards
>to the latter ones.
>[The policy-free requirements were mitigated]

What's not clear is how far we are willing to go in "working towards
interoperability across servers and clients with regards to the latter
ones."  I don't see consensus on this in the group.

>
>4.9.1.3. Separation of resource retrieval and concurrency control. The
>protocol must separate the reservation and release of versioned
>resources from their access methods. Provided that consistency
>constraints are met before, during and after the modification of a
>versioned resource, no single policy for accessing a resource should be
>enforced by the protocol. For instance, a user may declare an intention
>to write before or after retrieving a resource via GET, may PUT a
>resource without releasing the lock, and might even request a lock via
>HTTP, but then retrieve the document using another communication
>channel such as FTP.
>
>[Not changed. It looks reasonable, not implementation-oriented,
>and fully justifiable to me.]

Well, I can't figure out whether the current spec satisfies 4.9.1.3 or not,
which tells me that I don't really understand what the requirement is.  It's
true that there are separate operations for GET, LOCK, and CHECKOUT.  On the
other hand, CHECKOUT may implicitly do a lock and a get.  Furthermore, I
think the assumption is that the server (not the user) decides what order
things have to happen and what sequence of operations is treated as atomic.
Does this satisfy your requirement or not?

>
>4.9.1.4 Parsimony in client-server interactions. Versioning a resource
>implies that a potentially large quantity of important information about a
>resource that is known to the server providing it is unknown to the client
>receiving it. The protocol must make sure that the amount of interactions
>between the client and the server in order for the client to obtain this
>information is kept to a logical minimum, preventing unneeded or avoidable
>further requests.
>
>[New]

I think if the group likes 4.9.1.4, we should make it more generic and move
it to the general principles at the top of the paper.

>
>4.9.2. Functional Requirements
>
>4.9.2.1. Referring to a versioned resource. There should be a way to
>refer to a versioned resource as a whole.
>Some queries about the versioning status of a resource do not apply
>only to one version of that resource, but to the resource as a whole.
>Furthermore some operations may affect all versions of a resource,
>rather than any specific version. In these cases a way to refer to the
>whole version is required.
>
>4.9.2.2. Referring to specific versions. There should be a way to refer
>to each individual versions of a versioned resource.
>This means that a version is itself a resource. This is required for
>version-specific linking, and for non-versioning client support.
>
>[4.9.2.1 and 4.9.2.2 were inverted. Mentions of URLs removed.]
>
>4.9.2.3. A way for the client to determine whether a resource is versioned,
>or whether a resource is itself a version of another resource.
>
>The protocol should provide a way for the client to be able to determine
>important versioning facts about a resource.
>
>[Was 4.9.2.6. Mentions of URLs removed. Added further restriction on the
>identification of a versioned resource]
>
>4.9.2.4. Referring to a server-defined "default", "current" or "tip"
>version of a resource.
>
>The protocol must guarantee that a significant result, in the form of a
>default version of the resource, is returned for requests from
>non-versioning clients and requests where no special version information is
>provided.
>This does not rule out the possibility of a server returning an error when
>no sensible default exists.
>
>[Was 4.9.2.3. Removed implementation hints and justifications]
>
>4.9.2.5. It should be possible for the clients to determine the following
>interesting facts about a resource *without having the resource itself*:
>whether it is a versioned resource, how to get the default version, how to
>get the whole resource if it is a version of a versioned resource.
>
>Being able to determine these facts of a versioned resource makes it
>possible to implement browsing the version tree and deducing facts about it
>without necessarily getting the relevant resources. This also supports some
>comparison operations: It makes it possible to
>determine whether two references designate versions of the same versioned
>resource.
>
>[Was 4.9.2.7. Trasformed so as to specify the functionality required,
>rather than the way to get it.]
>
>4.9.2.6. It should be possible for the clients to determine and access the
>following related resources of a version of a resource:
>   o root version(s) of this version
>   o predecessor version(s) of this version
>   o successor version(s) of this version
>   o default version of this version [also in 4.9.2.4. Redundant?]
>It must be possible in some way for a versioning client to access
>versions related to a resource currently being exhamined. It is not
>strictly necessary that these operations are avaiable without having the
>resource first.
>
>[Was 4.9.2.4. Removed mentions to URLs]
>
>4.9.2.7. A way to retrieve the complete version topology for a resource.
>There should be a way to retrieve information about all versions of a
>resource. The format for this information must be standardized so that
>the basic information can be used by all clients. Other specialized
>formats should be accomodated, for servers and clients that require
>information that cannot be included in the standard topology.
>
>[Was 4.9.2.5. Untouched]
>
>[4.9.2.8. (Lock). Removed as handled in section 4.3 "Locking" already.]
>
>[4.9.2.9. (Unlock). Removed as handled in section 4.3 "Locking" already.]
>
>[4.9.2.10. (Reserve). Removed as handled in section 4.4 "Notification of
>Intent to Edit". I prefer the word "Reserve", though]
>
>[4.9.2.11. (Release). Removed since I feel overlaps with proposed
>"Uncheckout", to be put somewhere else (for instance, section 4.4
>"Notification of Intent to Edit"). I prefer the word "Release", though.]
>
>4.9.2.12. A way to submit a new version of a resource (PUT). The server
>should be able to attach it to the correct part of the version tree,
>based on the version number associated with the resource before its
>modification.
>
>[Unchanged. Possibly this is not the best place to put it. How about
>generalizing section 4.6 "Partial Write", and have it become "Write"
>(including partial and total)?]

I think you've pointed out a general problem that we haven't really thought
about, and that is that versioning, collections, and attributes all have
implications for existing HTTP methods.  Once we introduce these new kinds
of objects, we have to think about how GET, PUT, DELETE, and our new COPY
and MOVE operations work for them.

>
>4.9.2.13. A way for a client to request a version identifier for a
>checked out version. Such an identifier will not be used by any other
>client in the meantime. The server may refuse the request.
>
>[Unchanged]
>
>4.9.2.14. A way for a client to propose a version identifier upon
>submitting a version of a resource. The server may refuse to to use
>the client's suggested version identifier.
>
>[Unchanged]
>
>
>[4.9.2.15. (Metadata). Removed as handled in section 4.1 "Attributes" already.]

Well, yes and no.  We've said that there is a requirement to be able to set
attribute values.  But if there is a requirement for specific
version-related attributes, that needs to be stated here.  And if there is a
requirement that it be possible to set these attributes as part of the
checkin operation, that needs to be stated here, too.

>
>[4.9.2.16. (A way for a server to provide a version identifier to be used
>for a resource in further operations). Removed since it is strictly an
>implementation decision. The fuctionality it was needed for is contained in
>the following 4.9.2.17]
>
>4.9.2.17. A way for a client to query the server for information about a
>version tree, including which versions are locked, which are reserved for
>editing, and by whom (Session Tracking).
>
>[Changed to reflect implementation-independence.]
>
>4.9.3. Rationale
>
>[Unchanged]
>
>Versioning in the context of the world-wide web offers a variety of
>benefits:
>
>It provides infrastructure for efficient and controlled management of
>large evolving web sites. Modern configuration management systems are
>built on some form of repository that can track the revision history of
>individual resources, and provide the higher-level tools to manage
>those saved versions. Basic versioning capabilities are required to
>support such systems.
>
>It allows parallel development and update of single resources. Since
>versioning systems register change by creating new objects, they
>enable simultaneous write access by allowing the creation of variant
>versions. Many also provide merge support to ease the reverse operation.
>
>It provides a framework for access control over resources. While
>specifics vary, most systems provide some method of controlling or
>tracking access to enable collaborative resource development.
>
>It allows browsing through past and alternative versions of a resource.
>Frequently the modification and authorship history of a resource is
>critical information in itself.
>
>It provides stable names that can support externally stored links for
>annotation and link-server support. Both annotation and link servers
>frequently need to store stable references to portions of resources
>that are not under their direct control. By providing stable states of
>resources, version control systems allow not only stable pointers into
>those resources, but also well-defined methods to determine the
>relationships of those states of a resource.
>
>It allows explicit semantic representation of single resources with
>multiple states. A versioning system directly represents the fact that
>a resource has an explicit history, and a persistent identity across
>the various states it has had during the course of that history.
>
>
>
>
Name:			Judith A. Slein
E-Mail:			slein@wrc.xerox.com
Internal Phone:  	8*222-5169
External Phone:		(716) 422-5169
Fax:			(716) 265-7133
MailStop:		128-29E
Received on Monday, 17 February 1997 03:31:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT