[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:42:06 -0600
Yes. Or FPI, or the things at the ends of the
arrows that enter the top of IDEF definitions: aka, controls.
In each case, a record of authority governs some
process or declaration. It doesn't matter if it is
the same document or a copy as long as it can be
proven to be an exact copy. That means another process,
and another control, and so on to exhaustion. The
trick is to bound that so one doesn't burn down the
network chasing definitions. The next trick is to
enable a variant where local conditions need local
controls but function in situ as if they were the
original authority so are delegates. Usually, a
certificate of delegation is the proof (sometimes known
as a waiver). Poof! RDDL gets another resource
and role to play.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:28 AM
Subject: RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
At 04:01 PM 16/01/01 +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
>Actually I think it's simply two different problems which might
>have related solutions,
>1. Allow for local overriding of authoritative resources.
>2. Allow for distribution and replication of authoritative
Neither of which are specific to RDDL. I assume everyone
agrees with this. In the general case, these are just
consequences of dealing with URIs, n'est-ce pas? -T