sounds like structr.org may be something you want to look at ..
Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards Ir. T. Zeppenfeldt van der Waalsstraat 30 6706 JR Wageningen The Netherlands Mobile: +31 6 23 28 78 06 Phone: +31 3 17 84 22 17 E-mail: [email protected] <[email protected]>Web: www.ophileon.com Twitter: tomzeppenfeldt Skype: tomzeppenfeldt 2014-07-16 22:28 GMT+02:00 Jason Gillman Jr. <[email protected]>: > I was just wondering if the ability to utilize a schema of sorts was on > the road map. > > When I say schema, I'm thinking more along the lines of relational > constraints. > > Let's use the following simple example. > > We have the following types of entities represented by node labels > (:`Server`) > (:`Switch`) > (:`Physical Interface`) > > Then we would want to enforce the following relations (I would think these > restrictions would seem intuitive): > > (:`Server`)-[:`Contains`]->(:`Physical Interface`) > (:`Switch`)-[:`Contains`]->(:`Physical Interface`) > (:`Physical Interface`)-[:`Connects`]-(:`Physical Interface`) > > > Basically, to ensure data consistency without having to build it into an > application, we would want it so that Neo4j would not allow, for example, a > Server to connect to another Server, or a Switch, nor would we want to make > a Physical Interface contain a Server. > > Is something like this in the plans? Of course the use of these > constraints would be completely optional. > > Thanks! > > -Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Neo4j" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
