On Nov 26, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Jan Algermissen wrote:
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
These use cases mainly come from CMIS (content management over
AtomPub); and the main reason these aren't mentioned in the spec is
that we wanted to avoid a circular spec reference.
See <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200910/msg00015.html
>.
...
An alternative would be not to use the terminology around checkin/
checkout at all. I'll give that a try.
Reading your reference, I think that the important semantic is that
updating a working-copy does not produce a version, IOW, that, in
order to create a new version from a working-draft the draft must be
checked in. Hence, the notion of check-in is definitely necessary.
The actual operation is othogonal (could be a CHECK-IN method or a
standard HTTP 1.1 request to a resource that has the appropriate
semantics) but the general notion is fundamental to the idea of a
working-copy.
check-out I think could be dropped because when I know that something
is a working-copy it is by definition checked out.
... well then, the notion of check-in implies the notion of check-out,
so both are a vital part in the end.
Jan
Best regards, Julian
--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen
Mail: [email protected]
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------
