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

duplicate properties (was rfc2518bis DAV DTD ...)

From: Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:47:54 -0700
To: "WebDAV Discussion List" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FFEPLLNFAHGBKNENFGPAEEJADDAA.dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

This note seems to have gone into a hole somewhere [it is not on the archive] so I am resending it for completeness.  Now if I could figure out why I receive two of everything, that would be a good thing. -- dh

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:31
To: Julian Reschke; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: duplicate properties and such (was rfc2518bis DAV DTD ...)


Julian,

Thanks for the comment on the example.  I did that intentionally, because there is an existing example (8.2.1 in bis-04) that repeats a property, in effect, but inside of a wrapper, and I wanted to see what attention this one would attract.

(There is also an error in my <error> element example.  I left out the "/" before ">" of the empty element.  It should be <forbid-external-entities />.)

There is an issue that will arise with the unique property requirement.  Other uses of ad hoc properties in XML applications are not limited to single occurrences of property elements for the same property.  (Property-asserting elements are seen as predicates or establishment of a relationship, and many-to-many is commonplace.)  The example I gave would be appropriate if I was mapping something from RDF to DAV, for example.  This may become a problem as the Semantic Web and DAV collide.  

I assume that the appropriate DAV treatment would be to wrap a bundle of RDF properties inside a single DAV property and pray.  This is a new topic and probably becomes something to identify as an open/future item without resolution in 2518bis.  It is part of the overall question of relationship to other applicable standards, such as XML digital signatures and encryption, XML Schema, SOAP/XML-HTTP, UDDI, RDF-XML, and other Web Service and Semantic Web specifications that may have some bearing on DAV applications.  

-- Dennis

Side Note: From my background with DMS and especially DMA, I would find it natural to prohibit duplicate assertions about the same property.  

Having worked with other XML-based specifications for a while, I see that is not the course being taken.  What I learn from that is that I have been subjecting the protocol to the constraints of an envisioned storage model: I am using ideas about storage-system implementation to place tacit constraints on the request/response protocol for which there is no abstract justification.  That's a lesson for me.  

It's apparently a lesson in W3C work too.  Later specifications are being abstracted above the XML InfoSet and even above XML altogether.  The difference in specification models between SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 is informative in that regard.  The same arises in the Working Documents for revisions of RDF and in other Semantic Web specifications (e.g., OWL).  I don't know what the lesson might be for DAV. -- dh

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 07:43
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: rfc2518bis DAV DTD (was Re: How to use DTDs, or not ...)


Dennis,

[ ... ]

> ...
> 	<dav:propertyupdate xmlns:dav="DAV:">
> 	    <dav:set>
> 	        <dav:prop>
> 	            <dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
> 			Dennis E. Hamilton
> 			</dc:creator>
> 			<dc:creator
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
> 			Orcmid, junior nymph of the Orcan Conclave
> 			</dc:creator>
> 	        </dav:prop>
>           </dav:set>
> 	</dav:propertyupdate>

Nit: that isn't a meaningful request. Each WebDAV property only can have a
single value, so having it twice in propertyupdate will just result in the
"last" value being set.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 17:48:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT