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

Re: Data Model

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:35:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4C7E80BC.6060200@gmx.de>
To: David Nuescheler <david@day.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On 30.08.2010 20:08, David Nuescheler wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> thanks for the additional color.
>
> Let me chime in on one aspect...
>
>>> I think in JCR we went all out and in my mind went too far with
>>> binaries. I think I would be happy with having a single optional
>>> binary stream.
>>> More importantly though since this is about fine-grained information
>>> the typical case will be having "no" binary at all, but just a tree of
>>> properties (and "nodes?").
>> Would a zero length content work as well?
>
> Well, personally, I would rather avoid that route.
>
> I thought about this from various different aspects and while it of
> course works from an implementation and usage standpoint I would argue
> that it sets the wrong expectation and targets the wrong use cases.
>
> In my mind the general case is that the "nodes" (or the lack of a
> better term) do not have a "binary stream" associated, and in
> exceptional cases they do. I see the fine-grained nature more similar
> to rows of a table in relational database.
> So in my mind it is important to identify the "binary content" as the
> special case and make sure that the "binary content-less" concept is
> treated as the general case, and not the other way around.
>
> I realize that this is just a matter of setting the perception
> correctly but that's precisely why would like to be careful ;)
> ...

Understood.

I think once we have defined addressing we'll have to get back to this 
question -- if a node gets a URI we'll have to answer what its GETtable 
representation will be...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 16:35:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 16:35:49 GMT