Talk:ESciDoc Content Model Object
Moved to descussion[edit]
- schema of main metadata record
- schema of main metadata record
- for sake of simplicity we could always name the main metadata record "eSciDoc"--Natasa 11:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Custom name should be possible. Default value may be "escidoc". Frank 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe flags, if specific methods create new version.
- do not understand what this means--Natasa 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The idea was to have something like "submitting creates new version or not" (maybe submitting is a weak example). Frank 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe flags, if specific methods create new version.
- do not understand what this means--Natasa 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably we should also add a flag if a content-stream is allowed or not for resources of this CModel--Natasa 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion if content-streams are allowed or/and restricted by occurrence or name etc. should be stated like as for components (not key/value section!?). Frank 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably we should also add a flag if a content-stream is allowed or not for resources of this CModel--Natasa 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Lists[edit]
- model specific properties
- defines which properties (key-value pairs) are allowed to put in the content-model-specific section of an Item or Container. An allowed property is defined with name, datatype, and occurence. (May be obsolete because content-model-specific in Item and Container is seen as metadata and may be removed.)
- I would still not keep with this assumption. We have in content-model-specific properties in R4 put "local tags" i.e. those which are valid for publication items only, and are not indeed real Tag-relations.--Natasa 11:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- At ESciDoc_Developer_Workshop_2009-03-17 discussed; content-model-specific is needed by MPDL for "local tags" and will remain in item and container properties. I would educe local tags are not handled by the infrastructure from storing them in c-m-s element!? Maybe we just should provide a XML Schema for c-m-s element instead of a key-value list? Frank 08:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because content-model-specific is deprecated, now, there will be no specialized part to define the content. But it should be possible to define/validate content by rule- or modeling language. Frank 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- At ESciDoc_Developer_Workshop_2009-03-17 discussed; content-model-specific is needed by MPDL for "local tags" and will remain in item and container properties. I would educe local tags are not handled by the infrastructure from storing them in c-m-s element!? Maybe we just should provide a XML Schema for c-m-s element instead of a key-value list? Frank 08:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would still not keep with this assumption. We have in content-model-specific properties in R4 put "local tags" i.e. those which are valid for publication items only, and are not indeed real Tag-relations.--Natasa 11:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Removed model specific properties from proposal. Frank 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)