[Cosmo-dev] Sharing format questions

[Elliot Lee]

Did this go through?

On 8/1/06, Morgen Sagen <morgen at osafoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
[...snip...]
>
> 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?

What about just having read-only access? If A shares a calendar with
B, and B adds a new event, it goes in B's soup. If B chooses to do so,
B can share the calendar back with A, and A can accept the changes,
which causes B's new event to be merged into A's version of the
calendar. You can annotate any item you want, since there's always
only read-only access.

I guess the linking part could be taken care of when changes are
shared back. You might be editing the "read-write" calendar offline,
and then you notify the other user once you're connected again of the
modifications you've made. So there's no distinguishing read-only and
read-write, but just sharing. Writing would be by approval of whoever
owns the calendar to which the change is being written.

This might be a really silly idea, and if so, I apologize. It's just
something I thought of just now.