W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1997

RE: Washington IETF Summary

From: Saveen Reddy (Exchange) <saveenr@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 08:57:39 -0800
Message-ID: <2FBF98FC7852CF11912A00000000000107E77FBE@DINO>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, "'www-webdav-dasl@w3.org'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>

> ----------
> From: 	Larry Masinter[SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:44 PM
> To: 	Saveen Reddy (Exchange)
> Cc: 	'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
> Subject: 	Re: Washington IETF Summary
> Saveen:
> There are and have been many previous attempts to standardize
> searching on web servers in the past, including the
> Starts work, its recasting as ZStarts (using Z39.50 as a basis
> for searching).
> Your charter for DASL doesn't mention any attempt to rationalize
> the DASL work with any of the other (still ongoing) efforts.
> While it would be great if there were a standard for searching
> Internet repositories, especially those that can be constructed
> using WEBDAV, it's not so great to have two or three different
> and incompatible standards.
> Can you say more about the attempts to coordinate, or the
> justification,
> if any for an explicit decision not to? 
Ideally, we leverage everything possible from those ongoing efforts (
ZStarts, the LESSOR group, etc. ) and existing standards. DASL's goal is
to search (DAV) internet repositories, and I think that existing within
the DAV framework places constraints and requirements on the problem:
the resource model DAV defines (how it models collections in relation to
non-collection resources and properties), its use of arbitrary XML as
property values (opening up the potential for arbitrarily complex
values), variants, DAV's versioning model, DAVs use of namespaces for
property values, the relationship of the source link to resources being
searched, typing of values in XML etc. 

> > 
> > The functional needs for DAV search encompass the following
> > capabilities, which shall be considered by this working group: 
> It is unusual, and, I think, bad form, to define the functional
> requirements of scope in the charter of the working group itself.
> It might be that you have an initial Internet Draft which defines
> your best view of the functional requirements, and that you will
> put that document early in the milestones for consensus as an
> Informational RFC, but putting the contents itself in the charter
> leaves no place to have the discussion and consensus building
> around the description of the functional requirements themselves.
> That seems to stack the deck too much. What is the relative importance
> of "Use of existing querying mechanisms schemes" vs. 
> "Definition of a simple query syntax for interoperability" if
> there is no existing simple query syntax? Or what is the relative
> value of a simple query syntax for interoperability if, in the
> name of simplicity, you have to leave out features that are important
> for full interoperability?
> I like your idea about an initial Internet Draft converning functional
> requirments. I'll start building one up.
> Thanks,
> Saveen
> Larry
> -- 
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Saturday, 20 December 1997 11:52:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:12 UTC