I-D Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-05.txt

Discussion:

Julian Reschke

2009-12-07 14:38:35 UTC

Hi,

FYI - I have now requested registration and publication as Informational
RFC. If nothing unexpected happens, this could mean that the draft gets
to IETF Last Call in the next few weeks.

Best regards, Julian

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Link Relations for Simple Version Navigation
Author(s) : A. Brown, et al.
Filename : draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-05.txt
Pages : 13
Date : 2009-12-07
This specification defines Atom link relations for navigation between
a resource and its versions.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-05.txt
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Jan Algermissen

2009-12-09 22:26:40 UTC

Permalink

Julian,

when visiting the Dublin Core Web site, I was wondering if the draft
should clarify whether the intended semantics around 'version' refer
to versioning systems only or if they could be used in a broader
context such as multiple versions of a 'work'.

Dublin Core for example defines relationships around the concept of
'versions', e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf

IOW, there might be a situation when I have multiple versions of a
resource that are not related to 'putting the resource under version
control' but rather are the result of the evolution of the content.
Such versions might even reside on different servers, managed by
different authorities.

Do you feel the draft's semantics of 'version' covers this use case?
Or not?

Jan

Post by Julian Reschke
Hi,
FYI - I have now requested registration and publication as
Informational RFC. If nothing unexpected happens, this could mean
that the draft gets to IETF Last Call in the next few weeks.
Best regards, Julian

--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen

Mail: ***@acm.org
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------

Geoffrey M Clemm

2009-12-10 01:53:05 UTC

Permalink

Putting something under version control really doesn't mean anything
beyond having multiple versions of the resource.
There are of course a variety of other features supported by many
versioning servers, but having a version history is the lowest common
denominator.

So yes, this draft would apply to the case you describe, as long as
multiple separately addressable versions of the resource are provided.

Cheers,
Geoff

Post by Jan Algermissen
when visiting the Dublin Core Web site, I was wondering if the draft
should clarify whether the intended semantics around 'version' refer
to versioning systems only or if they could be used in a broader
context such as multiple versions of a 'work'.
Dublin Core for example defines relationships around the concept of
'versions', e.g. http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf
IOW, there might be a situation when I have multiple versions of a
resource that are not related to 'putting the resource under version
control' but rather are the result of the evolution of the content.
Such versions might even reside on different servers, managed by
different authorities.
Do you feel the draft's semantics of 'version' covers this use case?
Or not?
Jan

relations-05.txt

Post by Julian Reschke

ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Jan Algermissen

Post by Julian Reschke

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------

Julian Reschke

2009-12-11 11:13:55 UTC

Permalink

Post by Geoffrey M Clemm
Putting something under version control really doesn't mean anything
beyond having multiple versions of the resource.
There are of course a variety of other features supported by many
versioning servers, but having a version history is the lowest common
denominator.
So yes, this draft would apply to the case you describe, as long as
multiple separately addressable versions of the resource are provided.
Cheers,
Geoff
...

Agreed.

At least for the link relations that support the navigation between
versions it really doesn't matter whether internally a version control
system was used. (For the working-copy related relations things may be
different because they somehow imply authorability of a resource).

Best regards, Julian