W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: next steps / open issues in DASL framework

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 02:11:03 +0100
To: "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, "Babich, Alan" <ABabich@filenet.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEEJEDAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:02 AM
> To: Babich, Alan; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: next steps / open issues in DASL framework
> At 12:34 PM 3/12/2002 -0800, Babich, Alan wrote:
> >(1) Why couldn't there be multiple arbiters that searched a
> collection? That
> >would seem to be required if and when we transition to arbiters that can
> >search across multiple collections. (The original arbiter would
> still work
> >for upward compatibility, and one or more new
> multiple-collection arbiters
> >would come into existence.)
> >
> >(2) Therefore, it seems that requiring collections be aware of all the
> >arbiters that can search them is not acceptable. Why should
> collections care
> >what arbiters can search them anyway?
> >
> >(3) Why should a collection be forced to act as a arbiter? That
> would be an
> >undue burden and bad layering.
> I fully agree with Alan
> There is no necessary connection between a search arbiter and the
> resources
> it indexes.  Think of Excite, AltaVista, Yahoo and Google.  Four
> "arbiters", none of which provide the hosting for the content they index.

I think we have agreement that

- search arbiters can be "anywhere" (even on other servers),
- there's no way how a resource could know an exhaustive list of all search
arbiters in scope.

We still need to decide whether we want a standard way to discover search
arbiters that *are* known for a particular resource. I'd say as long it's
optional and the list doesn't need to be exhaustive, it won't hurt.
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 20:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:42 UTC