W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Comments on Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03

From: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:43:23 +0100
Cc: Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-id: <EA865FB4-6FB7-4498-90BE-2676711D020B@mac.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Nov 26, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>> (Sorry if this is confusing matters, but...)
>> I am not sure that the notion of a 'versioned resource' is  
>> necessary at all. If the draft defined 'version' instead the whole  
>> checkin/checkout notion could be dropped.
> The reason for making the distinction is that in many systems,  
> versions and versionable resources are different things (for  
> instance, in JCR and WebDAV).
>> 'Working Copy' could be defined separately as a resource that is an  
>> 'private copy' of a resource, one whose URI is not made available  
>> to any client except upon initial creation (sorry that this is so  
>> imprecise - I hope you get the idea).
> The URI of a working copy may not be private at all.
> ...it's really to hard to come up with terminology that is  
> compatible with many different system.

Do you have a (rough) set of use cases (IOW: client goals) that are to  
be enabled by the link relations?

Along the lines: "Client needs to find a working-copy" => link rel  
working-copy enables that

I have come to approach "hypermedia semantics" (media types, link  
relations, etc.) in terms of the goals they enable. Turning this  
around would mean: if something does not support a specific (probably  
very tiny) goal it should not be there.

Yes, versions and versionable resources can be different but is the  
distinction necessary for enabling the goals of the draft?

Stressing the point for analysis purposes:

"There is nothing a client cannot do when it does not understand the  
notion of 'versioned resource'".


>> IWO, the draft somehow circles around the checkin/checkout  
>> operations and I am not sure that is necessary.
>> (But if this sounds completely insane, just ignore it)
> No, I'm listening; and hoping for more feedback...

> BR, Julian

Jan Algermissen

Mail: algermissen@acm.org
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 15:44:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:44 UTC