Re: Use cases [was: How could RDDL be distributed ?]

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

Michael Mealling wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 04:45:12PM +0100, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > 1) Network optimization and reliability.
> >
> > Need to avoid that the servers for the most commonly used namespaces
> > become hot spots and we need to make sure we can still process documents
> > if/when one of them stops working.
> 
> Yes. This is the core use case for the URI resolution stuff.
> 
> > 2) Occasionaly connected users.
> >
> > Need to be able to process documents when we are off line.
> >
> > Possible solutions:
> >   - URI resolution servers with controlable cache
> >   - local xmlcat
> >   - Run time (API) definition of alternate locations
> >     (could rely on xmlcat...)
> 
> I would add a c15n type solution here. We don't have a protocol
> but its a fairly simple idea....

Fine !

> > 3) Untrusted documents.
> >
> > Need to be able to supply alternate locations without modifying a
> > document in order to process it with our own set of resources.
> >
> > Possible solutions:
> >   - setup of specific URI resolution servers
> >   - local xmlcat
> >   - Run time (API) definition of alternate locations
> >     (could rely on xmlcat...)
> 
> Same c15n solution as #2. Essentially #2 and #3 are the same
> functionally. The only difference being the actual reason why
> you would be using some other copy instead of the authoritative one.

Not exactly.

2) is relying on authorative sources and the best solution for the user
would be to have a transparent process to replicate these resources on
his station.

3) on the other hand is replacing authorative sources with local ones. 

> > 4) Additional customization of vocabularies.
> >
> > Need to supply alternate locations for documents we are authoring to use
> > a specific set of resources.
> >
> > Possible solutions:
> >   - setup of specific URI resolution servers
> >   - local xmlcat
> >   - Definition of alternate locations within instance documents.
> 
> Hmmm... seems to be the same as 2 and 3 to me. I.e. you end up
> doing the same thing except that the reason for doing it changes...

It may still be slightly different since if I send such a document to a
colleague working in another company, I'd like him to use (unless he has
good reasons to overide this choice) the resources I find appropriate
for the document.

This isn't the case for 2) or 3).

Eric

> -MM
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Mealling        |      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
> Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
> Network Solutions       |          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------