[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cmis] Scope of Hierarchical Properties
Hi, Jens, Thanks for pointing out all these
different aspects. I encourage people to jump in to express their views and
help define the scope of this "hierarchical/complex property" item.
It will be great if we can get our opinions out on the table before F2F. If I am not mistaken, hierarchical/complex
property so far is a "nice to have" capability. It has not been
identified as a "requirement" for v1.0, at least not yet. We need
use cases to help us to determine how important that we include
hierarchical/complex property in v1.0, and if we do, what representation and
operation are needed. The use cases do not need to be "complete"
since v1.0 is not meant to be a full-function interface. But they need to
reflect importance. Without imposing technical bias, I'd just
mention that we should bear in mind the following considerations: * Keep it simple for v1.0 (an objective
that we discussed earlier), so long as the proposal does not inhibit future
extension/generalization and allows backward compatibility. * How does query handle
hierarchical/complex properties? * It needs to be easily layer-able on top
of most repositories (an objective stated in the TC Charter). This may lead to
a "common denominator" solution. Regarding "structured document",
it may be a major topic by itself. Some people think of them as content, such
as large technical manuals that contain subcomponents. Others think of them to
contain metadata, such as forms. And still others argue that content and
metadata should be treated the same with no semantic distinction. This
discussion may touch upon XML and even XQuery. The TC should decide whether we
want to address this for v1.0. In other words, we need to define the scope of
"hierarchical/complex property" if we want to include it in v1.0. david From: Al Brown
[mailto:albertcbrown@us.ibm.com] Thanks for sending this out. I think it is worthwhile
to understand to how expose Pick List Dependencies, Language, Rendition, and
Multi-Lingual. IBM has a repository that exposes #3 and others that do not. The
older repositories tend not to support #3. The others are supported by
patterns, best practices, and some different functionality across IBM's
repositories.
1. Dependent Pick Lists Sometimes properties have a hierarchy between each other.
You might have a list of car manufactures on first level and a list of car
models on the second level where the allowed elements depend on the value of
the first level. 2. Structured documents Many repositories allow documents not being modeled as
something flat but having structure within the document itself. CMIS does
support versions as a substructures, other repositories might have additional
structures like sub-components, languages, renditions, attachments, whatever.
Often repositories allow properties on document level as well as on component
level. Some properties might have a global scope (like name, status), whereas
other properties might depend on the component level (version-specific,
language-specific, attachment specific), e.g author, modificationDate. The
structure is not necessarily restricted to two levels, but can be a tree (e.g.
Document-Version-Language-Rendition). 3. Relationship within properties Some repositories allow properties to be grouped and have
a structure in itself. A invoice might have a an ordered list of items, each
item having an amount. This is a kind of relationship on property level. The
CMIS relationship service might be a way to deal with those situations. 4. Multilingual properties Perhaps a special form of a
hierarchy, but could have some common pattern. Allow a value of a property to
be available in more than one language, for example a comment field in English
and French. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]