[CMIS 1.1 Draft Review] CMIS 1.1 Working Draft 02: Retention and Hold

[Jens Hübel <jhuebel@opentext.com>]

Section : 2.1.14 Retention and Hold

 

„A repository MUST throw a constraint exception if the application is not supported.”

Typo: application should be operation here

 

“All secondary types for retention and hold management SHOULD be able to be applied to objects derived

from the cmis:document base type. Applying such types to other CMIS objects and its behavior

is repository specific…”

à Do we have to be more specific here about folders? Proposal: If such a type can be applied to a folder then this is equivalent to applying the type recursively to all children of the folder.

Means: Either this is supported then it must be a recursive operation or it must result in a constraint  exception.

2.1.14.1

The usage of Repository Managed Retentions allows to support advanced scenarios where

à delete the word “advanced”

 

“This specification only defines the classication process, that is applying a Repository Managed Retention to a document. “

wording: put “Repository Managed Retention” in quotes?

 

“Creation and managing the rules and how rules are mapped to file plan categories is…”

àEither creation and management or creating and managing

 

Missing:

A secondary type derived from cmis:rm:repMgtRetention cannot be removed from an object once it has been assigned. A repository MUST throw a constraint exception in this case.

 

 

2.1.14.2.1

Assignment rules:

“A specific expiration date MUST NOT be removable replaced by a expiration date not-set. “

è Typo: delete word removable

 

Prolongation rule:

The repository must prevent a client from shortening the retention time.

è change must to MUST

 

2.1.14.2.3.2 Property Definitions

The Destruction Retentions object-type MUST have the following property definitions,  inherits all prop-…

è change inherits to MUST inherit

 

2.1.14.3 Holds

“A "hold"assures that a document can be restored to the state it was in when the hold has been applied”

è Suggestion: replace “can be restored to the state it was” to “preserve the state it was” (preservation is not enough, usually RM systems allow this even without a hold)

 

à Do we have to be more specific here about folders? Proposal: If a hold can be applied to a folder then this is equivalent to applying the hold recursively to all children of the folder.

Means: Either this is supported then it must be a recursive operation or it must result in a constraint  exception.

 

 

Jens