[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cmis] Considering use cases for relationships in CMIS
David, thanks for the feedback. Two comments...: > - As independent objects, they can be created, updated, and deleted by > users who don't have privileges to update either of the related > objects. They have have their own lifespan, policies, and audit history. So why are relations special, and not just generic documents that happen to have a source and a destination property? > You raise the issue of relationship types being opaque to the > application. Wouldn't we have the same issue if we replaced > "relationship types" with "relationship names"? In either case, > wouldn't there need to be a registry of types/names, in order to agree > on semantics? (Some core types/names might be specified by CMIS, as > we're contemplating for thumbnail/preview.) Standardizing relation semantics sounds like what the Semantic Web community is doing. There are using URI-based extensibility for relation names, and ontologies to describe how relations relate to each other (sorry for the lame terminology :-) . I thought that's why we added the globallyUniqueName property to the type system -- did we miss adding it to relations? BR, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]