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'".
Jan
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: [email protected]
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------
