[ckan-discuss] Package Relationships - remove?
kindly at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 19:16:46 BST 2011
I am definitely +1 on the removal.
Package relationships is a concept that are too flexible. They are
essentially a triple with the subject and object both a dataset/package
linked with a not very clearly defined set of predicates.
I think all the use cases that we have for ways to link a package to another
package should be addressed separately and not come under one catch all
feature. A 'forking' of a package for example seems very useful idea but
should be implemented as its own thing.
Relationships of resources seem more valuable, as they express actual
derived data. This will take a lot of thought and should also defiantly be
implemented in a separate custom way.
For the first point we improvised "links:" in the extra fields.
I really like this improvisation and think we should adopt it. So for
anything in the extras that has links:pacakge-name should become a clickable
link. I would also be happy to extend it to "derives:package-name". This
is the primary way links are done at the moment, so it would make sense to
go with it. We could also work out in the database reverse relationships
when the convention is followed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ckan-discuss