Re: [Neo4j] Any plans for an optional schema?
Thanks guys! Hi Jason, if you have questions on Structr, just let me know, we're happy to help! Best Axel Am 16.07.2014 23:31, schrieb Michael Hunger: Right I agree with Tom, currently you get this in structr (even when importing Neo4j databases, e.g. from a GraphGist). It definitely makes sense to have a feature like that. For Neo4j this is on the roadmap too, but not in the immediate future, it's more a capacity issue :) Am 16.07.2014 um 23:18 schrieb Tom Zeppenfeldt t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com mailto:t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com: sounds like structr.org http://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: t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com mailto:t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com Web: www.ophileon.com http://www.ophileon.com/ Twitter: tomzeppenfeldt Skype: tomzeppenfeldt 2014-07-16 22:28 GMT+02:00 Jason Gillman Jr. mackdaddydie...@gmail.com mailto:mackdaddydie...@gmail.com: 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 -- -- Axel Morgner CEO Structr (c/o Morgner UG) · Hanauer Landstr. 291a · 60314 Frankfurt · Germany Twitter: @amorgner https://twitter.com/amorgner Phone: +49 151 40522060 Skype: axel.morgner Structr http://structr.org - Award-Winning Open Source CMS and Web Framework based on Neo4j Structr Mailing List and Forum https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/structr Graph Database Usergroup graphdb-frankfurt http://www.meetup.com/graphdb-frankfurt -- 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[Neo4j] Any plans for an optional schema?
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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Neo4j] Any plans for an optional schema?
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: t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.comWeb: www.ophileon.com Twitter: tomzeppenfeldt Skype: tomzeppenfeldt 2014-07-16 22:28 GMT+02:00 Jason Gillman Jr. mackdaddydie...@gmail.com: 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Neo4j] Any plans for an optional schema?
Right I agree with Tom, currently you get this in structr (even when importing Neo4j databases, e.g. from a GraphGist). It definitely makes sense to have a feature like that. For Neo4j this is on the roadmap too, but not in the immediate future, it's more a capacity issue :) Am 16.07.2014 um 23:18 schrieb Tom Zeppenfeldt t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com: 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: t.zeppenfe...@ophileon.com Web: www.ophileon.com Twitter: tomzeppenfeldt Skype: tomzeppenfeldt 2014-07-16 22:28 GMT+02:00 Jason Gillman Jr. mackdaddydie...@gmail.com: 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [Neo4j] Any plans for an optional schema?
Hi Jason, From your examples, you should look at the Assimilation Project! http://assimilationsystems.com/ http://assimproj.org/ This is exactly the kind of data modeling we're doing - together with automating the collection of the data and keeping it up to date. It's a very interesting project (IMHO). On 07/16/2014 02:28 PM, Jason Gillman Jr. wrote: 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alan Robertson al...@unix.sh - @OSSAlanR Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions. - William Wilberforce -- 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 neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
