Derrick Hudson wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:54:21PM +0200, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
>| Derrick Hudson wrote:
>| >On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 03:07:33PM +0200, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
>| >| What I don't like about annotations is that the information is stored on
>| >| the object itself.
>| >FYI the annotations framework can be used while storing the annotation
>| >elsewhere. For example
>| >| That's why I'm using relations in cpsskins
>| >| instead of using annotations even for trivial things such has whether an
>| >| object is visible or not.
>| >I'll have to research this some more. It sounds like some interesting
>| >ideas on how to organize and manage the data.
>| Hi Derrick!
>| maybe I didn't explain what the actual issue is:
>| The problem is not whether the annotation data is stored *elsewhere* but
>| whether the annotation data is "tied" with object or not.
>Ahh, I see. That is a little bit different.
>| If it is tied with the object, then whenever you use annotations to
>| store a relation between several objects, you have to store the relation
>| twice if the relation is dyadic, to be able to do a reverse lookup:
>Yeah, like the classic doubly-linked list.
>I'll definitely have to take a look at this relations tool and see how
>it works. Thanks for explaining that.
If you need to do really advanced queries (cf. semantic web) then
Zemantic is much better (http://zemantic.org/)
the relation store I'm using is a minimal, light-weight implementation
for connecting components as opposed to organizing content using a
simple ontology . Hence relation lookups are not much more advanced
than adapter lookups, the most advanced query I've add to deal with so
far uses a predicate composed of several predicates .
The idea is the same as using adapters to connect components, except
that in this case the relations between the components change all the
time, so using adapters is not really appropriate, and nothing is being
Zope3-dev mailing list