Andreas Hartmann schrieb:
Felix Röthenbacher wrote:
[...]
That's a good point! What about ...?
-------- ------------
| Node |----| Document |
-------- ------------
| |
-------- --------
| Meta | | Meta |
-------- --------
Whereas the Node is a container for different language
documents. The Document data type is the container of the
binary data. Both data types would be adored with a
mixin-type called meta.
IMO it's the opposite, as kind of discussed a couple of days ago.
A document is something presented to the user upon her request; this is
the more usual terminology. But the document need not correspond
one-to-one to a physical resource managed by Lenya. Instead IMO a
document should represent a view (selection) of n content nodes. A
content node has meta-data, in particular Lenya internal meta data (such
as "resource type"). A document is what is presented to the user when
she makes a request. Meta-data here is more along the lines of dublin
core (although dublin core can also be used for the nodes)
IMO the choice "is a document visible in the navigation" can be either
in a navigation model (which does not yet exist as such, at least in the
default publication); or in the document. Viewing that as part of the
meta-data is acceptable if you consider that the document is a view on N
content pieces managed by Lenya, and not a physical resource.
If we are talking about redefining the data model anyway, I think we
should take this opportunity to flexibilize it: in particular it should
be possible to define a document as a collection of n content nodes (how
else would we provide for content reuse, amongst other features ?)
BTW this would also permit a more uniform handling of assets (as binary
content nodes)
--
Wolfgang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
