- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:52:06 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>>Thus, the language in the specification, from Section 9.2 "Versioning Data >>Model" should be used in the requirements. > >My problem with this is that the spec's usage seems counterintuitive. I >think it will confuse people. To me it seems natural to say that a node in >a version tree is a version (not a versioned resource). A versioned >resource is a resource that has versions -- it's not any one of the >versions. So I guess the closest thing to a versioned resource is the tree >handle. Well, while I agree with you that the language in the spec. is probably not intuitive, I'm not fond of just using the term "version" for a node in a version tree. Since it took the group awhile to agree that a node in a version tree is also a first-class resource, I'd like our terminology for the node in a version tree to reflect this. I'm also not fond of saying that a node in a version tree is a "version of a resource." This is because we may allow an individual resource to be a member of more than one version tree, and because it may imply (for people used to file-based versioning systems like RCS) that the version is not a first-class resource. I'm tempted to bypass this terminology thicket and coin a new term, like "movert," "movet," or "MVT," which is just an acronym for "member of a version tree." - Jim
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 13:14:33 UTC