W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 1999

Re: Calendar sharing and synchronization

From: Chris Waterson <waterson@netscape.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:50:00 -0800
Message-ID: <3829CC68.85976242@netscape.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
> Syncing is much trickier; if you're looking at (and editing) the result of
> such a giant graph merge, it is not immediately clear what should happen
> with edits. I'm not sure how the Mozilla folks
> (http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/) handle this: their API
> allows RDF graphs to be aggregated into a single virtual graph, and this
> graph (I believe) to have new facts added into it, edits etc. Quite how
> the aggregate routes assertions and edits to the datasources it aggregates
> over is an interesting question...

It's a hack :-).

. The composite datasource treats the datasources it aggregates as
totally ordered from "most local" (e.g., a store of "personal
overrides") to "most remote" (e.g., some immutable-to-me sitemap pulled
from the web).

. Each datasource may either accept or reject an assertion.

. The composite datasource tries to apply to assertion in each
datasource starting with the "most remote", working back to the "most

. The process stops as soon as a datasource accepts the assertion, in
which case the composite datasource has accepted the assertion. If no
datasource accepts the assertion, the compsite datasource rejects it.

In practice, these semantics are too weak, and we usually just address
assertions directly to an individual "leaf" datasource.

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 1999 14:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:21 UTC