[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
reporting standard questions
- To: <mark>, <tribble>, <us>
- Subject: reporting standard questions
- From: Eric Dean Tribble <tribble>
- Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 12:27:24 PDT
I think we've glossed over the mechanisms required for the reporting
standard (used in map operations).
Several things about reporting standards occurred to me last night.
Reporting standards (used with map operations) are used to get the
endsets of a link. The operation is something of the form: read Orgl
A, then read the links of interest wrt Orgl A. The result of the link
read will be a bunch of enclosures (span-optimization) onto Orgl A.
Notice that I aid nothing of Stamps. If I have to supply Stamps, do I
supply that Stamp of the multiOrgl containing Orgl A? If so, the map
operation could simply tell me the contents of the links wrt
themselves (I'm assuming they are contained in the same multi-orgl at
the moment). This brings up two questions: should the map-wrt
operation return ALL the EAddresses within the reporting standard that
share the data with mapped orgls (the links in this case)? and should
the map-wrt opertaion take orgls or stamps or both?
I can imagine lots of variation on this. The current reporting
standard semantics are OR based: data shared with one of the supplied
Stamps must be described as a single EAdress wrt to that Stamp. This
is useful for transferring shared documents efficiently. A second
type of reporting stanard would be AND based. the EAdresses for all
the sharing between the mapped document and its reporting standard
must be returned.
Note that the use of reporting standards for version compare requires
and AND semantics as well. What other uses did we have in mind for
the map-wrt operations?
I wonder if the AND map-wrt could be used for multiple document