Re: Re^4: Debian Metadata Proposal -- draft rev.1.4
On Wed, Jul 08, 1998 at 07:31:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote:
> Am 06.07.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ...
> It#s only possible to add links to URLs but not to a document (like the
> ISDN number).
You'll be surprised to hear that the notion of the SGML Public Identifier
allows exactly that. I would not be surprised to find such things
implemented (if not now, then later), via isbn://whatever.
The SGML Public Identifier is the same concept as URL/URN. This has little
to do with filenames (it tries to breake the limits of a file system
concept).
> APH> format. Did you look at the included example or not? For one, the
> APH> tag set changed, although there's a one-to-one correspondance. For
>
> That is not true. You (or the DC team) have merged DocumentID and File.
> And this produces new problems. I think the old solution was a lot of
> better.
I think there are indeed problems, for example if two packages want register
the same home page. I don't think this is very likely, but I think it is
very likely that two packages may want to register the same relative path in
your proposal. Then you indeed need another field for the ID (which imposes
more work on the maintainers). You only need it in your proposal because
relative filenames are not unique across docreg.
> APH> instance, we don't have debian/admin/faq, debian/admin/howto.
>
> But we will have something like general/howto.
No, we will not have something like this.
There is no way you can make me including some shit like "general/howto" that
tells the user NOTHING, now that we have the notion of the "Type:" element.
> APH> Functional arguments please. What functionality is missing? What do
>
> DocID *and* file name.
The Identifier: replaces and provides both. I agree completely with Adam
that thisis a crucial difference.
> APH> Basically want I'd love to see is what you've done with the database
> APH> from dhelp, but made general and standard so every display system can
> APH> use it. What do you think?
>
> Maybe nice, but a system like dhelp needs its own databases. I need a
> special sorting of the data.
Seems like a design flaw of dhelp.
> APH> The whole issue with URN is to find a way to address documents in a
> APH> way that is not coupled to an individual host and/or file path.
>
> That#s a good idea.
So you agree now that we shouldn't use filename+doc-id but Identifiers
instead?
> APH> seems like bad system design because you are coupling the file system
> APH> location with the resource identifier location. Converting in and out
>
> Yes, but this is not a problem of my solution itself. This problem is
> introduced by merging docid and file. But which your solution we will have
> the same problems.
So you don't agree? You have to decide which way to go, Marco.
> If I (as package maintainer) would for example move HOWTO/ to HOWTO/html
> all links to the HOWTOs will be broken with both solutions.
???? You would have to update your docreg files, wouldn't you?
[problem with relative filenames storing in database]
> APH> How do we deal with this? Reap objects without files?
>
> Rebuild the database.
This reminds me too much of reinstall windows. We can do better.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: