OK, but shouldn't there be some consistent guideline as to how to assign
from and to relationships? What is it in this case?
-Al
David E. Jones wrote:
Al Byers wrote:
One issue that I see needing resolving at this time is the
"direction" of the ContentAssoc entity. It has a from field
(contentId) and a "to" field (contentIdTo). In any content managed
site, there is the concept of relating dynamic pieces of content to
fixed pieces. This is like a newspaper where the editorials are
always at the same place, but the content changes. This association
is done via the ContentAssoc entity, which is dated. The problem is
that I think I wrongly introduced the idea that the fixed content
would be the "to" component and the dynamic piece would be the
"from". The contentAssocTypeId for this link is "PUBLISH_LINK". If I
had know, then I think I would have drawn from the PartyRelationship
example, in which the from and to partyIds and roles are designated
based on the direction of the partyRelationshipName (and
partyRelationshipTypeId, which is like the contentAssocTypeId field,
follows the name).
This is taken from the party/data/PartyTypeData.xml file:
<!-- NOTE: The partyRelationshipName describes the TO party, ie A
is a customer of B, so A is the partyTo and B is the partyFrom -->
So maybe I just contradicted myself, and what is there is correct.
PUBLISH_LINK (the contentAssocTypeId) is sort of the "name" of the
ContentAssoc and that sort of names the "fixed" content, which by
the statement above, should be the contentIdTo. In any event, this is
something that should be in the documentation.
A PartyRelationship is different from a ContentAssoc and no parallel
should be drawn between them.
-David
