W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Version merging questions

From: Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:22:08 -0800
Message-ID: <4FD6422BE942D111908D00805F3158DF0A757931@RED-MSG-52>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>, muniz@inf.puc-rio.br
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
What I believe we have specified to date is that there are "conceptually"
two graphs.  There is a graph that the server maintains and asserts is
correct and there is a graph that is specified by the client that may be
incorrect.  The former is created by checkin/out operations and the later
using the "Merged-From" header/property.  My assumption is that in your
example, you would checkout B and merge the changes from A to created B'
which you call C.  (or vice-versa).  The client would specify that B' is
derived from A and B.  The server would track this as a new revision of B.


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
		Sent:	Wednesday, November 11, 1998 9:39 AM
		To:	muniz@inf.puc-rio.br
		Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
		Subject:	Re: Version merging questions

		   From: "Bruno C. Muniz" <muniz@inf.puc-rio.br>

		   Suppose I have two unrelated resources A and B, version
graphs VA and
		   VB, where A belongs to VA and B belongs to VB. Now, if I
derive a
		   version C from A and B, what happens ? C is inserted in
both VA and VB
		   and a new version graph VC containing C is created ?
Since a resource
		   can be in multiple version graphs, does exist a kind of a
		   version graph for a given resource ?

		Good question.  Although allowing a revision to be in
		versioned resources is an explicit "nongoal" in the current
		"Versioning Goals" document (nongoal #1, in fact), this
doesn't fully
		address your question.  We should add a statement that "the
		predecessors and sucessors of any revision of a versioned
		must also be revisions of that versioned resource".  This is
		in the current draft of the proposed protocol (where the
		and successors are specified in terms of revision-id's
instead of URI's),
		but it would be clearer if it were explicit in the "goals"

Received on Monday, 30 November 1998 14:22:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:18 UTC