Re: [cmis] Considering use cases for relationships in CMIS

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>]

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