W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

(unknown charset) Re: WebDAV Delta-V Working Group Last Call (fwd)

From: (unknown charset) Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:09:00 +0000 (GMT)
To: (unknown charset) Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
cc: (unknown charset) Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101211806550.17760-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Am I missing something here?  The bit which I'd have thought was 
> particularly relevant to RDF is the WEBDAV work, which is already a 
> proposed standard (RFC2518).  I fail to see the XP relevance of this.
> The DELTAV pieces, as I understand, are those extra bits which allow 
> multiple versions and incremental changes to be handled within the WEBDAV 
> framework.

You're right; work on mapping WebDAV <-> RDF is
(also) important. However DELTAV itself is of interest to those of us
who want to model document lifecycles more accurately in RDF,
ie. reflect the events in a documents history and the states of the
different concrete copies of that document (varying filesizes etc).


> #g
> --
> At 02:07 PM 1/20/01 +0000, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >RDF and XP folk,
> >
> >Forwarded for info; if you send in review comments please copy the RDF
> >or XP lists if it seems appropriate. Bear in mind that this is a last call,
> >so comments such as 'you should start again and use RDF/SOAP/XP/whatever'
> >are unlikely to be helpful. If someone were to put some time into doing
> >an analysis of the WebDAV/Delta-V approach in the context of things like
> >RDF and XP, that'd be hugely useful, as would reports from any
> >implementors working with both technology families in the same environment.
> >
> >noteworth excerpt...
> >[[
> >If you've been waiting for a "stable" version of the specification
> >before performing a review, you need wait no longer.  This is it.
> >]]
> >
> >Dan
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:43:10 -0500
> >From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
> >To: ned@innosoft.com, "Patrik [iso-8859-1] Fältström" <paf@swip.net>,
> >      ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> >Subject: WebDAV Delta-V Working Group Last Call
> >Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:46:17 -0500 (EST)
> >Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> >
> >
> >Web Versioning and Configuration Management PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION
> >
> >We are happy to announce the second working group last call for comments
> >from the DeltaV working group on the Versioning Extensions to WebDAV
> >Specification, draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-12 available at
> >http://www.ietf.org/ids.by.wg/deltav.html or http://www.webdav.org/deltav/.
> >This last call for comments period begins immediately, and ends February 1,
> >2001, at midnight, US Eastern time.  This allows sufficient time for review
> >of the specification in time for the March IETF '50 meeting.
> >
> >At the end of the last call review period, a new draft will be issued.
> >Depending on the scope of changes introduced between the -12 and -13
> >versions, there will either be an immediate call for rough consensus (very
> >few changes), or a third last call review period (significant changes).
> >Once the document represents the rough consensus of the working group, I
> >will submit this document to the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)
> >for their approval.  IESG review involves a (minimum) two week public last
> >call for comments period.  This IESG-initiated last call period is in
> >addition to the working group last call period.
> >
> >This document is intended to be a "Proposed Standard".  Quoting from RFC
> >2026, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3":
> >
> >    The entry-level maturity for the standards track is "Proposed Standard".
> >A specific action by the IESG is required to move a specification onto the
> >standards track at the "Proposed Standard" level.
> >
> >    A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
> >known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received
> >significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
> >interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience might
> >result in a change or even retraction of the specification before it
> >advances.
> >
> >    Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required
> >for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard.  However,
> >such experience is highly desirable, and will usually represent a strong
> >argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation.
> >
> >Many details on the procedures used to develop an IETF standard can be
> >found in RFC 2026, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
> >
> >If there are any procedural questions or concerns, please do not hesitate
> >to contact me, or raise an issue on the list.
> >
> >Notes:
> >
> >1) Issues raised during the last call period will be resolved individually,
> >rather than lumped together and dealt with as a whole.  This follows the
> >issue-resolution convention being followed in the HTTP WG.
> >
> >2) If you've been waiting for a "stable" version of the specification
> >before performing a review, you need wait no longer.  This is it.  We value
> >your input, but time is running out. So please review the specification now
> >in order to ensure your input gets included.
> >
> >- Jim Amsden
> >Chair, IETF DeltaV Working Group
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2001 13:09:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC