W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Proposal for work on an efficient, browser-friendly, HTTP-based communication protocol for fine-grained information exchange

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:10:18 +0200
Message-ID: <4C67D92A.4010505@gmx.de>
To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On 13.08.2010 10:02, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
> ...
>     # Data Model
>
>     1) Define a collection model (hierarchy, naming), and a representation
>     format.
>
> I have seen many debates around representation formats when the
> underlying meta-model is often ignored ... and the meta-model should
> cover, in addition to hierarchy, relations. And naming should allow for
> different representations too, e.g. with the URI template[] being one of
> them.

I think we need to be careful; if we over-engineer the data model we may 
scare away parts of the audience we want to include. It should be 
possible to define something that has an easy-to-use JSON representation 
but still have a solid model in the background.

Including relations into the model makes sense to me. Links and link 
relations are important.

I'm not sure I understand the point about naming; could you elaborate?

> ...
>     Expected deliverables from this activity would be:
>
>     1) Definition of a very simply data model and a representation format
>     for it (required JSON, optionally XML).
>
>     2) A format suitable for manipulating the data format above using PATCH
>     (potentially tunneled through POST).
>
>     3) A binding from multipart/form-data/POST to this model.
>
>     4) A separate (?) document explaining how these ingredients would be
>     combined in practice.
>
>     Extensions to WebDAV and mappings from/to WebDAV could be useful, but
>     would not be a core part of this activity. (That is, we can do without
>     if no volunteers speak up).
>
>
> Resource-based concurrency-control and sync (revision logs) specs may be
> developed on top of these deliverables as well.

Concurrency control as in locking? (be it optimistic or pessimistic)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 12:11:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 15 August 2010 12:11:19 GMT