RE: bind draft issues

   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

   Geoff, as RFC3253 relies on the concept of bindings, could you
   please attempt to fill in what *you* think an identical
   DAV:resource-id needs to indicate?

For RFC3253, two version-controlled resources are the "same" when
they have the same version history.  So the obvious implementation
of the DAV:resource-id property for a version-controlled resources
is the DAV:version-history property.

Version and Version-History resources cannot be moved, so the
URL at which the were created can act as their DAV:resource-id.

So this allows RFC3253 to remain neutral on the question of 
what does "resource identity" mean about the results of various
other HTTP and WebDAV methods.

Note: the question of resource identity for an activity resource
is not addressed by RFC3253, so that remains an open question.
Since most versioning repositories store activity resources in some
kind of database, resource identity for activities ends up not
being much of a problem in practice though, since there usually will
be some obvious implementation property that could be used as
the DAV:resource-id property.

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 09:09:15 UTC