Peter This could be a use case:
Let's have "users", "roles", "permissions" and "communities". Each role is defined as a permissions set. Users have assigned a list of roles for every community they belong to. If roles could be assigned this way (user)-- (has_role)[community_neo4j] --> (role) we can manage separately each user, permissions in role and community. we don't need to have a set of roles for each community. The communities won't be erased if role assignments are enacted. And mainly they could be used in custom traversers and patterns. I agree we are not used to see these kind of handwritten graphs, but how can you draw a clean graph and use it in neo4j with referential integrity without the ability of having a node as property value? Regards Aniceto > Aniceto, > introducing real Node and Relationship links as fields on Nodes and > relationships would essentially blur the distinction between Nodes, > Properties and Relationships, and let you treat the graph as a > Hypergraph. We find that model too abstract and hard to deal with the > edge cases of these structures in real world scenarios. > > Instead, would it be possible for you to store NodeIDs in properties > instead, or serialise Node[] into byte arrays as properties? I don't > recommend it since it duplicates and unlinks information in the graph > that has to be maintained by triggers and updates, but that would be > one possibility. What is the concrete usecase that drives you to these > constructs? > > Cheers, > > /peter neubauer _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
