Hi Mattias
I haven't programmed in awhile, but I would be surprised if you couldn't add this feature using XML also. Correct me if I am wrong - and from the spunkiness demonstrated on this list so far, I'm sure someone will.The other method is using a dynamical database implemented in sql where you can define different attributes for each document.
I also don't think that the number of possible attributes for each document needs to vary greatly.
I think there can and should be some variation - but I don't see it as a performance issue or overriding design concern.
The problem with the first approach is that the aggregated xmldocuments are potentially huge and loading it into memory for searching would probably mean a performance hit. Method nr 2 should work pretty well , should even be able to convert the sql tables to xml if you want to do xpath or to direct sql searches, only downside I can see is that the metadata probably can't be as hierachial complex keeping the xml shallow. On the other hand I'm not sure metadata needs to be that structurally complex, any thoughts?best regards --- Mattias Konradsson
In my experience, it is important to allow the controlled vocabularies -which act as possible values to the metadata attributes-to be hierarchical. I don't think it is as important that the metadata attribute structure itself be hierarchical. (Please let me know if you have seen counter examples to this statement or if I am not speaking in the language/terminology you are familiar with -we are all still learning the different lingo of the different communities.)
My point about controlled vocabularies becomes important during the publishing process - when content owners are assigning metadata values. They may need to traverse a tree in the controlled vocab - to get to the right/appropriate value.
Good Luck,
Donna M. Fritzsche
Amichi, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise.
-- -- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise.
