Re: WeDAV Versioning Summary
Sankar Virdhagriswaran (sv@crystaliz.com)
Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:15:06 -0400
Message-ID: <000701be8679$21e56880$e6ea7392@honeybee>
From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <sv@crystaliz.com>
To: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:15:06 -0400
Subject: Re: WeDAV Versioning Summary
Jim,
You folks a put in a lot of good work and I hope you folks don't get
frustrated with these questions. Thanks for your patience and enthusiasm.
Now for some questions and concerns about the current model:
1. I think workspaces are getting overloaded. In the past, we had talked
about workspaces as a view on to the underlying data (versions,
configurations, activities). I was happy with this. Now, it appears that
workspaces are also the place where merge will happen. This enforces a
workflow model on merge processing. Because of this imposition, we have to
worry about authority/responsibility implications (e.g., access control,
role related views, private/public, etc.) on workspaces. Finally, on the
face of it, it appears to limit the workflow model to a two level
organization - not a many level nested organization of activities.
2. Are you going to be publishing an object model for this summary as you
did before? In particular, I am confused about the relationships between
workspaces, activities, configurations. For example, the text says that a
workspace contains 'a current' activity. But, this is not true if the
workspace is also going to be used for merging. At steady state, a workspace
may contain many activities that are being merged. Am I confused?
3. For the above two reasons I would recommend that we separate the notion
of workspace from the notion of where merge processing is done. While the
idea of a 'place where work is performed' is common to both of them, the
workflow and other implications are different.
4. Also, I would like to see the object model for 'activity'. I am a little
confused about the semantic model for what an activity is.
Sankar