W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections

From: B. Shadgar <shadgar@cs.bris.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:00:06 +0100
Message-ID: <3EA7B5A6.8C0D1807@cs.bris.ac.uk>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "B. Shadgar" <shadgar@cs.bris.ac.uk>, w3c-dist-auth <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of B. Shadgar
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:55 PM
> > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Cc: w3c-dist-auth
> > Subject: Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
> > ..
> >
> > Well, I was thinking that maybe the best use case of the Ordering
> > protocol was
> > regarded to the versioning of resources. In this case, I though
> > if every time
> > that a revision is created, a live property containing the name
> > of resource was
> >
> > attached to the resource, maybe we didn't need to the new Ordered
> > protocol.
> >
> > Does it make sense?
>
> Now you got me confused :-) What's the relation of (1) resource names and
> (2) versioning to ordering collection members?
>
> Julian

Dear Julian

Sorry.  I may be wrong, it is just some thought.
1) the resource names to ordering collection:

By my undrestanding, what is suggested in the ordering collection, is a way
to change the order of resources and put them the at the beginning or end of
the list, after or before a given resource. Also this is true that in the
Real numbers you can always find a number less or a number greater than a
given number.
Consider, you have a live property called resource-name which is made by the
name of resource followed by a Real number. Now every time you would like to
have a new order, system can change the resource- name based on your order
(by changing the Real part of resource-names) . Then by using the order
option on the resource-name in the Search protocol we can have the desired
order.

2) Versioning to ordering collection:

The tree in the section 8 of the orderd-collections-protocol reminds me of
the situation in the Versioning. This reminding and some other thoughts
(maybe silly) caused to say so.

I hope I didn't make you more confused. If so, I apologize again.

Regards,
Bita.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 06:00:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT