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

[Al Brown <albertcbrown@us.ibm.com>]

ECM typically exposes three basic modelling constructs to its end-users: documents, folders and relationships. ECM providers also expose more modeling constructs such as a generic object holding only metadata. However, those other modeling constructs (to my knowledge) are not consistent enough across vendors for standardization.

globalUniqueName was added, I believe, to type definitions and property definitions. As such it should be on all types and properties.

-Al

Al Brown
Emerging Standards and Industry Frameworks
CMIS: https://w3.tap.ibm.com/w3ki07/display/ECMCMIS/Home
Industry Frameworks: https://w3.tap.ibm.com/w3ki07/display/ECMIF/Home

Office 714 327 3453
Mobile 714 263 6441
Email albertcbrown@us.ibm.com
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The contents of this message, including any attachments, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the message was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original message and any attached documentation.

Julian Reschke ---05/26/2009 08:56:58 AM---David,

From:	Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
To:	David Pitfield <david.pitfield@oracle.com>
Cc:	CMIS List <cmis@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	05/26/2009 08:56 AM
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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php