Re: comments on database format

[Jason Pincin <chardros@linuxkb.org>]

> I am looking at the database format and have a few comments:

Thanks for your comments and questions Wade.  I'll do my best to answer - if you feel I don't
answer well enough, please tell me.

> 1.  In the article table, should there be a version number?
>     Such a verison could be MM.mm.ff or 6 digits???
>     MM -- major, mm -- minor, ff -- minor edits
>     This would be useful HOWTO's, etc.

I am implimenting revision control for ALL objects - this includes articles as well as
containers, users, etc.  Basicly, you can see how an object was at any given point in the past,
or roll the object back to one of those states very easily.  Obviously, there will be a cap of
how far back we can store an object, but this will be configurable easily, probably by object if
need be.  

It will be handled outside of the actual object's table.

> 2.  Should there be an article history (even if not visible
>     to the end user)?  For example, a link in the article table
>     to a previous version of the article in a "prior article"
>     table.  When updating an article, one would copy the existing
>     to the prior table then update the article table entry?
>     This could be an update option (keep prior article or 
>     don't keep it)?

Your talking a little like what I'll be doin for object history's as I explained above.

> 3.  Should the article-user cross-reference contain a 
>     field with values like "author", "contributor", 
>     "maintainer", "referenced", etc?  

Um... is article-user-xref still there?  That table should be removed.  Sorry.  It'll be handled
via the ObjectChileLink table or whatever I called that.  Users will just be linked in as child's
of an article to make them an author.

BUT - you do raise a VERY valid point concerning the possible need to differentiate between
author, contributer, maintainer, etc.  I noticed the LDP guys even made room for this in there
XML spec.  I'll have to give soe thought to that... I don't have an answer right now for it, but
lemme get back to you.

> 4.  Should the database contain a new table for comments 
>     or followup on articles?  If so, should the role table
>     contain a permission bit to allow the posting of 
>     comments or followup info?  For example, someone could
>     write an article and another could provide comments 
>     or system-specific suggestions for it????  

Yes... there will be a new table (and thus new object type) created for comments.  However - the
Roles table will be disapperaing... there will be a Permissions table that holds security
information.  I'll remove all those old tables that are no longer in use as they may prove
confusing.  The Permissions table will track what objects are able to perform what actions on
what objects.  Thats the structure it'll follow.  And that will allow all objects in the system
to be security aware.

Lemme know your thoughts on all this.  And if you have any ideas on the author/contributer/etc
thing I'd love to hear them.  Thanks Wade!

-- 
Jason
http://vodka.linuxkb.org/~chardros