Well, feel free to discuss it. I just don't think of it as a use case,
rather as refactoring to make things simpler (which in turn could open some
new use cases).
On Dec 8, 2014 7:16 PM, "Terry Brady" wrote:
> The DCAT agenda for tomorrow will cover some use cases similar to these
> ideas.
>
> h
The DCAT agenda for tomorrow will cover some use cases similar to these
ideas.
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/cmtygp/DCAT+Meeting+December+2014
Perhaps your proposals could be added to the comments/use cases for
tomorrow's discussion.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:12 AM, helix84 wrote:
> On Thu
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:07 PM, helix84 wrote:
> Regarding the lack of bundle as a superfluous container
correction: Regarding the bundle as a superfluous container
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> Community and Collection have different metadata. We need to think
> about
Community and Collection have different metadata. We need to think
about that.
Community can't hold Item but Collection can. So Container would need
an attribute: can-hold-Item. Some sites might want to enforce that
Items must be pushed down to the lowest level.
Bundle should die. We really
I agree completely. I listed this a long time ago as one of my pet
peeves with DSpace:
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/~helix84/DSpace+pet+peeves
But I wouldn't make the restriction that site cannot contain items. We
can imagine a site without the rigid hierarchy, where you would slice
through
Hi All,
Here's an idea that I've been thinking about for some time. What if
DSpaceObjects Community and Container got merged together into an object
called Container. Thus, you could submit an item to a container. You could
also add a container to a container. You couldn't submit an item to the
ro
