RE: correcting incorrect version submission (WAS: Hierarchical UR Ls and Collections)

Regarding the statement

	"people make mistakes and manipulation to correct the effect of
	incorrectly submitting a version needs to be available."

I must point out that such a mechanism already exists in WebDAV. It
involves only resubmitting the correct version. To illustrate a very
simple case...

	1.	User checks in a new version (version 1.1)
	2.	User realizes that this was the wrong document to
check-in.
	3.	User checks in a new version with the right document
(version 1.2)

Not only is the audit trail preserved, but the the effect of submitting
a version incorrectly has been corrected.

	-Sean

Sean Forde, Software Engineer
FileNET Corporation
Bellevue, WA
sforde@filenet.com
(425) 990- 0308		
My opinions are my own.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paton, Jeff J [mailto:Jeff.J.Paton@corpmail.telstra.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 3:36 PM
To: 'John Stracke'; 'WebDAV'
Cc: Falkenhainer, Brian; Garnaat, Mitchell; 'Jim Davis';
masinter@parc.xerox.com
Subject: RE: Hierarchical URLs and Collections


Architecting WebDAV to enforce the effect of the statement "declaring
that
version 1.13 descends from version 1.1 instead of 1.12, which means you
lose
the audit trail that versioning provides" is going to limit its use in
the
real world: people make mistakes and manipulation to correct the effect
of
incorrectly submitting a version needs to be available.

Cheers

Jeff Paton
Senior Technology Consultant - Internet & Intranet
Technology Strategy & Architecture
IT Services
Telstra Australia

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Stracke [SMTP:francis@netscape.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, August 20, 1998 4:10 AM
> To:	'WebDAV'
> Cc:	Falkenhainer, Brian; Garnaat, Mitchell; 'Jim Davis';
> masinter@parc.xerox.com
> Subject:	Re: Hierarchical URLs and Collections
> 
> Yaron Goland wrote:
> 
> > As such I encourage the various document vendors who need a flat
> namespace
> > to involve themselves in the DAV versioning effort and to ensure
that
> the
> > commands and properties created by that effort are sufficiently
> versatile to
> > allow for arbitrary state graph manipulation.
> 
> But that would wreck the versioning system.  Versioning doesn't want
to
> permit
> arbitrary manipulation of the version graph; versioning needs to
provide a
> few
> well-defined operations (e.g., check in, check out) which manipulate
the
> version graph in legal ways.  Arbitrary manipulation fo the graph
would
> permit
> things like declaring that version 1.13 descends from version 1.1
instead
> of
> 1.12, which means you lose the audit trail that versioning provides.
> 
> --
>
/======================================================================\
> |John (Francis) Stracke    |My opinions are my own.|I imagine the
wages|
> |Software Retrophrenologist|=======================/ of sin are death,
|
> |Netscape Comm. Corp.      | but by the time they take taxes out it's
|
> |francis@netscape.com      | just sort of a tired feeling.--Poundstone
|
>
\======================================================================/
> New area code for work number: 650
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 August 1998 19:54:57 UTC