- From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:02:21 -0800
- To: "Babich, Alan" <ABabich@filenet.com>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
At 12:34 PM 3/12/2002 -0800, Babich, Alan wrote: >(1) Why couldn't there be multiple arbiters that searched a collection? That >would seem to be required if and when we transition to arbiters that can >search across multiple collections. (The original arbiter would still work >for upward compatibility, and one or more new multiple-collection arbiters >would come into existence.) > >(2) Therefore, it seems that requiring collections be aware of all the >arbiters that can search them is not acceptable. Why should collections care >what arbiters can search them anyway? > >(3) Why should a collection be forced to act as a arbiter? That would be an >undue burden and bad layering. I fully agree with Alan There is no necessary connection between a search arbiter and the resources it indexes. Think of Excite, AltaVista, Yahoo and Google. Four "arbiters", none of which provide the hosting for the content they index.
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 19:03:11 UTC