OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-collab message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded

On 05.12.2012 19:21, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Let me clean up my aside about what can be known:
> I mean that the MCT cannot govern producer behavior about what happened that led up to the produced change-tracking.  Users may have their own requirements on what producers and consumers are acceptable for their work, but there is no way to reflect that in conformance clauses for MCT, especially for producers.
> Am I mistaken in this?
Again I am not fully sure if I interpret your statement correctly. What
MCT does, it defines change pattern. Like the move of a table row, the
merge of two paragraphs or simply the insertion of a character. MCT will
not govern how the change will be triggered, it only provides a way to
define a change. Operations are the way to parameterize the defined XML
change-pattern to express the user changes on the document.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 10:18
> To: 'Svante Schubert'; 'office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded
> OK, good.
> Now, is there a technical definition of measurable equivalence?  The one about deletion of a string of characters one at a time being tracked that way (but the preference is to track it as one change) is easy.  
There is indeed not yet a technical definition of measurable equivalence
of operations, but I am confident that there will be one in the end. The
behavior is pretty straight-forward and obvious. Further examples
further below.
> When there are non-coalescing atomic actions, there is the matter of different cases, as already discussed for insertion in insertions, deletions across deletions, etc., that can arrive in more than one way but aren't *necessarily* reflected in the persistent document.
Exactly, like the user A sends his document to user B and when user A
receives the change-tracking of user B, it reflects only the condensed
changes of the overall work of user B. All insertion and deletion of the
same component have been neglected, in general all operations are being
used as little as possible. For instance, if there had been multiple
single hard attributes being set, they will be collected in one
operation. Similar to insert/delete adding up to zero, overwriting
attributes are being neglected.
>   Or perhaps that is simply up to the producer, since there is no way to know that the user actually did it as one action once the document is produced?  (I may have answered my own question, assuming the MCT specification does not constrain the relationship of the producer to its provisions for in-session editing actions.  I am assuming that such a constraint is inappropriate in a format specification, since there's no way to know.)  
Exactly. There might be an exception, when our save button - by the
evolutionary step of saving in the cloud - mutates to some kind of
commit button, where user can bundle and comment the current (or
previous) changes.
Imagine we would work on the ODF specification and would relate our
editing to a certain JIRA issue. In this case, we would bundle arbitrary
changes over the document to a certain semantic.
It would might be possible to accept/reject such a semantic change in
total or it might even be possible with MCT to move such bundled changes
through history, but this will be a different future topic.

Best regards,
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Svante Schubert
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 09:40
> To: office-collab@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [office-collab] Re: [office] Groups - MCT Challenge #2 (PDF) uploaded
> On 05.12.2012 18:19, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> My sympathies are with the statement by Oliver on the call log:
>>    [16:08] Oliver-Rainer Wittmann: Thus, yes I agree. I would 
>>    also go a step further: Would be good, if an application 
>>    could indicate a certain bundling and may be also name it.
> [ ... ]
> I believe you you refer to the log, the original quote was '
> the information set of changes have to be the same.
> ' It was meant that the granularity of changes does not matter. It only
> matters that the overall change is the same. Accepting/Rejecting once
> "abc" or each three separated characters is up to the application.
> Operations used by applications to express the change have to be equivalent.
>>  - Dennis
> [...]
> Best regards,
> Svante
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: office-collab-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: office-collab-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]