Subject: RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:14:33 -0500

How about the following:

Suppose:
- C is a collection
- R is a resource
- C-MAP is the set of URI's mapped to C
- a BIND request causes a binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R to be
  added to collection C
Then immediately following the BIND request, for each "C-URI" in C-MAP,
the URI "C-URI/Binding-Name" is mapped to resource R.

Then using a facsimile of Yaron's example, if I have a collection whose
C-Map is the set {<http://icky/bop>, <http://zizbang/rocky>} (i.e. those
two URL's map to this collection), and I perform a BIND that successfully
adds to this collection a binding from "blah" to resource R, then 
following this BIND, the URL <http://icky/bop/blah> maps to R and
the URL <http://zizbang/rocky> also maps to R.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Yaron Goland
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?

The first paragraph of section 5.3 reads "Suppose a BIND request causes a
binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R to be added to a collection, C.
Then if C-MAP is the set of URI's that were mapped to C before the BIND
request, then for each URI "C-URI" in C-MAP, the URI "C-URI/Binding-Name" is
mapped to resource R following the BIND request." 
        I have a B.S. in CS & EE and got A's in my classes on set theory and
I still can't read this paragraph. I tried over and over again and I just
couldn't figure it out. If you are going to try to write set theory in
English you should at least translate it faithfully using the appropriate
terms such as "for all" and "there is an instance of". Personally I would
recommend just using an ASCII version of set code notation. Whatever you do,
the current paragraph MUST go. It is unfathomable. In fact here is the best
translation I have been able to come up with: Imagine I have a collection
http://icky/bop which contains http://icky/bop/blah. Imagine I now want to
map http://zizbang/rocky to http://icky/bop/rack. According to this language
it would seem I would have to create a bind to http://icky/bop/blah/rack. I
know this makes no sense but I swear that is what the sentence seemed to
mean when I tried to read it four or five times. As such I move that the
paragraph be rewritten.

---

From: "Fay, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:04:00 -0800

Geoff,

Shouldn't that be <http://zizbang/rocky/blah> in the last sentence?

--Chuck Fay 
FileNET Corporation, 3565 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 
phone:  (714) 327-3513, fax:  (714) 327-5076, email:  [email-masked]

> From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 2:15 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?
> 
> 
> How about the following:
> 
> Suppose:
> - C is a collection
> - R is a resource

---

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:56:16 -0500

Oops!  Chuck is of course correct.  Sorry about that!

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Fay, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 6:04 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.5.3Huh?

Geoff,

--Chuck Fay