Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections

Julian Reschke wrote:

> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of B. Shadgar
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:02 PM
> > To: Julian Reschke
> > Cc: w3c-dist-auth
> > Subject: Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
> >
> >
> >
> > Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > some more thoughts:
> > >
> > > Properties are attached to resources. Ordering is a property of the
> > > collection that contains internal member names identifying
> > resources. For
> > > instance, you might have several collections containing
> > bindings to the same
> > > set of resources, but with different orderings. There's no way
> > to simulate
> > > this with DASL (which -- by the way -- is not nearly done...)
> > and returning
> > > ordered results.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> >
> > Ok, what if we define a live property called resource-name which is
> > representing the name of a resource?
>
> We can't, because the name isn't a property of the resource. It's a property
> of the binding *to* the resource (of which there can be many), and which
> belongs to the state of the parent collection.
>
> BTW: how would that help?
>
> Julian
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Well, I was thinking that maybe the best use case of the Ordering protocol was
regarded to the versioning of resources. In this case, I though if every time
that a revision is created, a live property containing the name of resource was

attached to the resource, maybe we didn't need to the new Ordered protocol.

Does it make sense?

Bita.

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 13:56:32 UTC