- From: Dennis E. Hamilton <infonuovo@email.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:51:00 -0700
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Nice analysis. I think it is inappropriate to use DMA in this comparison however. DMA 1.0 only standardizes those properties essential to holding the model together. That is, they are required to support realization of the model / architecture itself. These are almost all synthetic and live, in the WebDAV sense, and they are structural in nature. The DMA specification doesn't address externally-meaningful (non-live) properties, or ones needed to make an application of the DMA model practically useful at all. For example, there are no well-known properties for obvious things like title, author, or anything like that (except for metadata descriptions, where there are specific provisions for human meaningful names and descriptive texts, all conformed to the locale / language of the human operator). The DMA 1.0 Versioning model, even though it anticipates branching and merging, doesn't even provide any synthetic labeling or version identification mechanism. It is all done navigationally. It is expected that any representation of the dmaClass_VersionDescription class of objects would certainly provide properties of that ilk, but the specification is silent on the matter. PS: It is not expected that version labels would be projected onto the dmaClass_DocVersion class even though that is the way we named the puppy -- the DMA versioning model allows a DocVersion to be a version in more than one way, so in the general case all labeling must be on the VersionDescription, which leads from a particular place in a VersionSeries to a DocVersion (or other versionable object). A single DocVersion can be the target of multiple VersionDescriptions. Finally, I might as well put in my druthers: 1. I think the version label should be part of core versioning. 2. It should not employ case-insensitivity ever. 3. I am not clear on how one would specify server-determined restrictions on the character set used in labels, so I suppose one would not do that. -- Dennis AIIM DMware Technical Coordinator http://www.infonuovo.com/dmware ------------------ Dennis E. Hamilton InfoNuovo mailto:infonuovo@email.com tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm) fax. +1-425-793-0283 http://www.infonuovo.com -----Original Message----- From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 18:04 To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: Arguments for simpler core versioning [ ... ] 1. Document Management Alliance See http://www.aiim.org/dma [1] - DMA 1.0 designed for linear versioning only (extensible later, presumably, to branched versioning) - No required support for labelling (no standard for defining labels -- and the DocVersion object doesn't have a label field) [ ... ]
Received on Friday, 6 October 2000 15:47:33 UTC