> From W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl Fri Aug 20 15:55:57 1999
> Delivery-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:55:57 -0700
> Return-Path: W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl
> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 00:38:04 +0200
> From: Wojtek Sylwestrzak <W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl>
> X-Accept-Language: pl, en
> To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
> CC: wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: Taxonomy draft - web replication problems
>
> Joe Touch wrote:
>
> > > however for each of these definitions it would be relatively easy to
> > > find a counterexample. it might be premature to consider these now,
> > > but i'm sure we could give examples of mechanisms that copy server
> > > output but can hardly be called caching, are initiated by server,
> > > but are still considered to be caches etc.
> >
> > The purpose of these definitions (or the matrix thereof) is
> > to provide a grounding for the base concepts. One thing
> > we know all too well in WREC is that there is:
> >
> > - a counter example for every definition
> >
> > I.e., mirror refers to the server,or collection, not the
> > individual items. A datum is replicated; the collection is
> > mirrored. (at least that's what I'm trying to convey).
> >
>
> how about: a datum is copied, the collection is mirrored ?
Yes - and a cached copy is (by nature) temporary;
a replicated copy is permanent.
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST