Re: (Opposite of working-copy?) Comment on draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03

[Al Brown <albertcbrown@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan I appreciate all your help on this.

It's an interesting concept. I would have used predecessor-version to specify the version that the working copy came from. This does not work as well in some systems that as mentioned creates a new version on checkin rather than checkout. In those systems the working copy and the version the working copy came from are internally in that system the same.

I am okay with adding it. It makes sense. It reduces the overload on the predecessor-version. CMIS (and any other system) can leverage the new link relation if desired.

-Al

Al Brown
Office 714 327 3453
Mobile 714 251 6441
Email albertcbrown@xxxxxxxxxx
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The contents of this message, including any attachments, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the message was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original message and any attached documentation.

Julian Reschke ---12/02/2009 09:07:04 AM---Jan Algermissen wrote: > Julian,

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Atom-syntax Syntax'" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@xxxxxx>, Al Brown/Costa Mesa/IBM@IBMUS
Date: 12/02/2009 09:07 AM
Subject: Re: (Opposite of working-copy?) Comment on draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03
Sent by: w3c-dist-auth-request@xxxxxx

---

Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Julian,
> 
> what is your opinion regarding the introduction of a link relation that 
> is the opposite of working-copy in order to being able to find the 
> versioned resource that the working copy I have is a working copy of?
> 
> I am undecided regarding the necessity, but without a working-copy-of 
> relation it seems the client would need to maintain that information 
> (the relationship or the fact that a given resource is a working copy) 
> across requests.
> 
> I do not think this is really I-D publication relevant right now, please 
> understand it only as a side comment.
> ...

I have no problems adding this; the reason it hasn't been proposed was 
that apparently CMIS didn't have a use case for it.

Al, any opinion on this from a CMIS point of view?

Best regards, Julian