[Cosmo-dev] Sharing format questions

[Morgen Sagen]

On Jul 31, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> At OSCON I had lengthy conversations with Bobby and BCM about item
> uniqueness and Cosmo, I've been thinking about it since then.
>
> Lets say there's a unique item UglyRabbit.  It's conceivable that we
> might move towards Cosmo insisting on users having read permissions on
> UglyRabbit before they can put UglyRabbit in any other collections, if
> Cosmo already knows about UglyRabbit (this is the "one soup" model).
>
> The win here is that we can diminish network traffic in updating  
> lots of
> identical items.  We can also address all items by UUID, and not  
> have to
> scope them by user or collection.  I don't think (though perhaps  
> I'm not
> seeing the whole picture) that doing this avoids any merging  
> issues, it
> just makes them happen faster.
>
> My worry is, what happens if someone revokes my original permission to
> view UglyRabbit?  Do I lose permission to view the item in my own
> collections?  That seems harsh.
>
> I think if users couldn't rely on having access to items in their
> collections it would break sharing.  If you give me access to
> UglyRabbit, I think I should be able to rely on having access to *that
> version* of UglyRabbit in my collection on till I delete it.
>
> At this point, it seems like we're scoping uniqueness on a per-user
> basis.  I think it might be easier to think about the problem if we
> start by assuming each user has their own soup.
>
> Starting there, I'd say we probably want semantics for personal
> annotations that both Cosmo and Chandler's sharing code understand.
>
> Once we had that, perhaps we'd want to add explicit Cosmo semantics  
> for
> linking an UglyRabbit in MeanHunter's soup to VeganActivist's soup,
> which would only be valid as long as VeganActivist had read-only or
> read-write permissions on MeanHunter's version of UglyRabbit.
>
> Seem reasonable?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jeffrey

I was trying to think through a scenario similar to this, with  
individual soups, but I got stuck on where to publish new items on a  
shared collection.  For example, if A shares a calendar with B  
(granting read-write), and B adds a new event, does it go in A's soup  
or B's?

But as I mentioned last week I do like the notion of individual soups  
because it means you can annotate any item you want even if you only  
have read-access to it.  Would we need explicit linking of items, or  
is it enough that they have the same UUID?