Re: Requirements document for the September OHS meeting

From: Steve Dossick (
Date: Mon 09 Jun 1997 - 17:47:33 CDT

In message <v03102802afc22fd939a7@[]>, Kaj Gronbak writes:
> At 16:14 -0500 09/06/97, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> >I think the OHP would be a raging success if it only accomplished the
> >following:
> >
> >Browse functionality:
> >- develop an interoperable locSpec
> >- allow an OHP client to retrieve a document from an OHP server
> >- allow an OHP client to initiate a link traversal
> _(fwd link)_
> I think we need to add at least link creation - not necessarily editing of
> contents - but creation of external links. If we don't do that, our
> protocol will be (like many standards unfortunately) way behind state of
> the art:
> - Hyperwave can create links for Web pages without owning the contents
> - Microcosm (WebCosm?) can do it
> - DHM/WWW can do it
> I agree we should keep the first version basic, but we also need to
> demonstrate that we have something here which is visibly different from
> plain vanilla Web...
> /Kaj

Our OzWeb system supports these external links as well, and I'll be at the front of the crowd implementing OHP link creation features when they're available.

However, I think it's important to get a baseline protocol in place which can be used for document and link retrieval first. There are lots and lots of issues (including some of the ones brought up by Jim, like locking and transaction support) which will need to be ironed out when you start thinking about putting editing features in the OHP.

Perhaps it's a good idea to separate all the issues from the original list into a sort of 'version 1' and 'version 2' list?


Steve Dossick				     Department of Computer Science
Research Staff Associate		     Columbia University
Programming Systems Lab
608 CEPSR				     (212) 939-7184

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 13 Aug 2002 - 07:20:44 CDT