I'm with the Jasons on using "level", which is how I think of it.
Marlene Marlene F. Coleman ILS Database Manager Branch Manager, Beaufort Beaufort County Library [email protected] 843-470-6544 On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jason Boyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I use the term "level" whenever I'm discussing permissions with people > unfamiliar with the terminology. It makes sense since we already talk about > decisions being made at the "library level" or "consortium level." People > would likely understand without a lot of confusion that they're only able to > effect things at their level or below. > "Level" makes a lot of sense, yes. That actually has the added benefit of having a meaning very close to the same as you describe when talking about a directed graph (and, in particular, an adjacency list, as the org hierarchy is currently implemented). It's not perfect, as in the technical context it would mean "exactly the named level" instead of "the named level or below", but it doesn't fall into the same class of confusion we'd get from "breadth" vs "depth". I can definitely support either "level" or "range." Thanks for the input! --miker > Jason > > -- > Jason Boyer, IT Specialist > Jackson County Public Library > 303 W Second St > Seymour, IN 47274 > > [email protected] > p (812) 522-3412 ext. 227 > f (812) 522-5456 > >
