- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: 2010年8月15日 14:10:18 +0200
- To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4C67D92A.4010505@gmx.de>
On 13.08.2010 10:02, Wenbo Zhu wrote: > ... > # Data Model > > 1) Define a collection model (hierarchy, naming), and a representation > format. > > I have seen many debates around representation formats when the > underlying meta-model is often ignored ... and the meta-model should > cover, in addition to hierarchy, relations. And naming should allow for > different representations too, e.g. with the URI template[] being one of > them. I think we need to be careful; if we over-engineer the data model we may scare away parts of the audience we want to include. It should be possible to define something that has an easy-to-use JSON representation but still have a solid model in the background. Including relations into the model makes sense to me. Links and link relations are important. I'm not sure I understand the point about naming; could you elaborate? > ... > Expected deliverables from this activity would be: > > 1) Definition of a very simply data model and a representation format > for it (required JSON, optionally XML). > > 2) A format suitable for manipulating the data format above using PATCH > (potentially tunneled through POST). > > 3) A binding from multipart/form-data/POST to this model. > > 4) A separate (?) document explaining how these ingredients would be > combined in practice. > > Extensions to WebDAV and mappings from/to WebDAV could be useful, but > would not be a core part of this activity. (That is, we can do without > if no volunteers speak up). > > > Resource-based concurrency-control and sync (revision logs) specs may be > developed on top of these deliverables as well. Concurrency control as in locking? (be it optimistic or pessimistic) Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 12:11:19 UTC