Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:53:19 -0500

Any relationship captured by collection membership can just
as easily be captured by a property.  The "expressiveness" that
you lose is the ability to use URL paths to select a particular
path through that relationship.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Elias [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:36 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

Is there some compelling reason you would use BIND to capture this 
relationship? It seems like this could be captured just as easily and 
without losing any expressiveness via the use of a "uses" property instead.

Elias

Clemm, Geoff wrote:

> [...]
> Suppose the relationship I'm capturing in a set of collections
> is the "uses" relationship between software modules.  This me to
> use pathnames like "moda/modb/modc" to refer to the module named
> modc used by the module named modb which in turn is used by the
> module named moda.  Since the "uses" relationship can be cyclic,
> I could get a path like "moda/modb/modc/moda/...".