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

Re: next steps / open issues in DASL framework

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:35:28 -0800
Message-ID: <3C9117A0.57B13BF4@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: dasl <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
"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.)

We're in agreement on this - I would object to anything in the spec. that
implied otherwise.

> (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?

The collections may not care, however, the open question is one of arbiter
discovery - How can I find out what arbiter to direct my query to if I want to
search through collection X. I think that interrogating the collection directly
is the most direct way to address this.

> (3) Why should a collection be forced to act as a arbiter? That would be an
> undue burden and bad layering.

I agree, resources in general should not be forced to act as an arbiter, but
should be able to direct someone to a search arbiter, if one exists, that can
be used on that resource. This does not imply that a resource should know about
every arbiter, a generally impossible requirement to satisfy, but a minimum
requirement should be that a resource should identify a default arbiter that
can be used.

Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 16:35:31 UTC

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