Re: Revision identifier and revisions l

Tim Ellison OTT (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:10:48 -0400 

From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <1999Oct06.100800.1250.1343373@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:10:48 -0400
Subject: RE: Revision identifier and revisions l


FWIW my mental model is the same as Dennis'.

Tim
 ----------
>From: infonuovo
>To: 'Geoffrey M. Clemm'; ietf-dav-versioning
>Subject: RE: Revision identifier and revisions l
>Date: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 2:27AM
>
>Yes, I agree with the revision identifiers being in separate namespaces.
>
>Thanks for requesting clarification - I replied to the wrong message!  To 
be
>specific, it is my view that:
>
>1. A system-defined (i.e., server imposed) revision-id is a valuable
>mechanisms for insuring invariants of the versioning model regardless of
>what is done with properties and whatnot employed for application-specific
>purposes.
>
>2. A user-meaningful revision-label is valuable for carrying
>application-relevant, human-useful labels that fit someone's notion of
>revision identification.
>
>It is useful to provide for both, and they could both occur for a single
>revision.  In this case, it does not make much sense for the revision-id 
and
>revision-label to share a namespace.
>
>With regard to interoperability, (1) has no problems, since the server has
>complete say in the matter; (2) requires additional agreement if a
>revision-creating client is to honor the scheme expected by other users of
>the server.  Rather than leave the revision-label underspecified, it might
>be prudent not to specify it, so there is no presumption of 
interoperability
>or a priori agreement when there is none.
>
>[I may be using a different sense of interoperability than <gmc>.  I 
haven't
>considered products being from the same vendor as providing any assurance 
of
>interoperability in live application settings.  I'm willing to look for a
>better term for what I have in mind, namely multiple parties being able to
>achieve a valid cooperative result without being in communication.]
>
>-- Dennis