Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
We should abandon the concept of "custom" meta data and introduce
modularized meta data instead.
I guess you mean separating custom and Lenya metadata cleanly, right?
Or otherwise can you explain a bit.
I think we should not separate between "internal" ("Lenya") and
custom meta data,
well, I think we should cleanly separate Lenya stuff from custom stuff,
because of migration,
Schema and legacy content reasons
but we should allow to use meta data sets which
are identified by namespaces.
I think this is the least we can do ;-)
Some examples used by the core are:
- DublinCore elements
- DublinCore terms
- workflow-related meta data
- access-control-related meta data
- content item meta data (e.g. resource type, source extension, mime
type)
this seems to me Lenya core stuff
- image-specific meta data (e.g. width, height)
I would consider this also resource specific
Resource types and other components could declare additional meta data
sets for specific purposes, e.g.
- access permissions in certain environments
- content descriptions
- information about search indexing (how, when, ...)
A meta data element set consists of a set of attribute keys
and is identified by a namespace.
can you give an even more specific example ;-) ?
Thanks
Michi
-- Andreas
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+41 44 272 91 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
