RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?

Geoff,

Shouldn't that be <http://zizbang/rocky/blah> in the last sentence?

--Chuck Fay 
FileNET Corporation, 3565 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 
phone:  (714) 327-3513, fax:  (714) 327-5076, email:  cfay@filenet.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:15 PM
> To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?
> 
> 
> How about the following:
> 
> Suppose:
> - C is a collection
> - R is a resource
> - C-MAP is the set of URI's mapped to C
> - a BIND request causes a binding from "Binding-Name" to 
> resource R to be
>   added to collection C
> Then immediately following the BIND request, for each "C-URI" 
> in C-MAP,
> the URI "C-URI/Binding-Name" is mapped to resource R.
> 
> Then using a facsimile of Yaron's example, if I have a 
> collection whose
> C-Map is the set {<http://icky/bop>, <http://zizbang/rocky>} 
> (i.e. those
> two URL's map to this collection), and I perform a BIND that 
> successfully
> adds to this collection a binding from "blah" to resource R, then 
> following this BIND, the URL <http://icky/bop/blah> maps to R and
> the URL <http://zizbang/rocky> also maps to R.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Yaron Goland
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:52 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?
> 
> 
> The first paragraph of section 5.3 reads "Suppose a BIND 
> request causes a
> binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R to be added to a 
> collection, C.
> Then if C-MAP is the set of URI's that were mapped to C 
> before the BIND
> request, then for each URI "C-URI" in C-MAP, the URI 
> "C-URI/Binding-Name" is
> mapped to resource R following the BIND request." 
>         I have a B.S. in CS & EE and got A's in my classes on 
> set theory and
> I still can't read this paragraph. I tried over and over 
> again and I just
> couldn't figure it out. If you are going to try to write set theory in
> English you should at least translate it faithfully using the 
> appropriate
> terms such as "for all" and "there is an instance of". 
> Personally I would
> recommend just using an ASCII version of set code notation. 
> Whatever you do,
> the current paragraph MUST go. It is unfathomable. In fact 
> here is the best
> translation I have been able to come up with: Imagine I have 
> a collection
> http://icky/bop which contains http://icky/bop/blah. Imagine 
> I now want to
> map http://zizbang/rocky to http://icky/bop/rack. According 
> to this language
> it would seem I would have to create a bind to 
http://icky/bop/blah/rack. I
know this makes no sense but I swear that is what the sentence seemed to
mean when I tried to read it four or five times. As such I move that the
paragraph be rewritten.

Received on Friday, 25 February 2000 18:05:45 UTC