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

Re: Versioning terminology

From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:50:33 PST
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970220195033.00929d00@pop-server.wrc.xerox.com>
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
If we let our terminology be "version tree" and "member of a version tree",
the requirements start looking something like this:

4.9.2.1. Referring to a version tree. There should be a way to refer to a
version tree as a whole.  Some queries do not apply only to one member of a
version tree, but to the version tree as a whole.  Furthermore, some
operations may affect all members of the tree, rather than any specific
member.  In these cases, a way to refer to the whole version tree is required.

4.9.2.2. Referring to specific members of a version tree. There should be a
way to refer to each member of a version tree.  This means that each member
of the tree is itself a resource. This is required for version-specific
linking, and for non-versioning client support.

And so on . . .

OK?

--Judy


At 09:52 AM 2/20/97 PST, Jim Whitehead wrote:
>>>Thus, the language in the specification, from Section 9.2 "Versioning Data
>>>Model" should be used in the requirements.
>>
>>My problem with this is that the spec's usage seems counterintuitive.  I
>>think it will confuse people.  To me it seems natural to say that a node in
>>a version tree is a version (not a versioned resource).  A versioned
>>resource is a resource that has versions -- it's not any one of the
>>versions.  So I guess the closest thing to a versioned resource is the tree
>>handle.
>
>Well, while I agree with you that the language in the spec. is probably not
>intuitive, I'm not fond of just using the term "version" for a node in a
>version tree.  Since it took the group awhile to agree that a node in a
>version tree is also a first-class resource, I'd like our terminology for
>the node in a version tree to reflect this.
>
>I'm also not fond of saying that a node in a version tree is a "version of
>a resource."  This is because we may allow an individual resource to be a
>member of more than one version tree, and because it may imply (for people
>used to file-based versioning systems like RCS) that the version is not a
>first-class resource.
>
>I'm tempted to bypass this terminology thicket and coin a new term, like
>"movert," "movet," or "MVT," which is just an acronym for "member of a
>version tree."
>
>- Jim
>
>
>
>
>
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 Thursday, 20 February 1997 18:43:53 GMT

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