Subject: Regarding UseCases

From: Sascha Carlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:51:05 +0200

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/UseCases

Discussions can be local and can spread over serveral places. How are 
discussions represented in Atom? What use cases exist for this special 
application?

Regards, Sascha

-- 
Sascha Carlin * Heinrich-Heine-Str. 1 * 64319 Pfungstadt
http://www.itst.org/         **         +49 6157 157 205

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:30:39 +0200

> discussions represented in Atom? What use cases exist for this special  

I propose that we use Dublin Core's <relation>[1] element, which then  
would not distinguish between «local» and «distributed» discussions. All  
discussions are discussions, no matter how and where they are held. The  
appropriate attributes to use for a discussion, are 'References' and  
'IsReferencedBy'.

That way, you could have bidirectional pointers; both from the referenced  
(the entry that is being commented on) and the referencing (the comment)  
entry.

____
[1] <url: http://dublincore.org/documents/relation-element/>

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Ken MacLeod <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Jul 2004 09:47:17 -0500

Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]> writes:

> > Discussions can be local and can spread over serveral places. How
> > are  discussions represented in Atom? What use cases exist for this
> > special  application?
> 
> I propose that we use Dublin Core's <relation>[1] element, which
> then would not distinguish between «local» and «distributed»
> discussions. All discussions are discussions, no matter how and
> where they are held. The appropriate attributes to use for a
> discussion, are 'References' and 'IsReferencedBy'.

I have some general disagreements about particular markup and meanings
surrounding this, is this part of PaceLinkParent or some other Pace?
Can we wait until that Pace comes up for discussion?

  -- Ken

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:21:33 -0700

> Can we wait until that Pace comes up for discussion?

If it's not part of one of the others, it needs its own Pace I'd say... 
it certainly feels like a large, meaty issue. -Tim

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:09:55 +0200

On 15 Jul 2004 09:47:17 -0500, Ken MacLeod <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I propose that we use Dublin Core's <relation>[1] element
>

I'm not sure. Seeing that <relation> solves a lot of problems and not only  
threading, I guess the element needs a pace of its own. But I'm not sure.

> Can we wait until that Pace comes up for discussion?

Of course.