[ckan-discuss] Multiple package schemas

Tim McNamara paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz
Wed Oct 6 22:53:13 BST 2010

On 7 October 2010 06:58, Richard Cyganiak <richard at cyganiak.de> wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2010, at 18:17, David Read wrote:
>> Excellent point. Yes, maybe we want a 'schema' to merely define
>> specific 'extra' fields, with their validation and later their
>> display. Then you could have a package having several 'schemas' quite
>> simply. The core package fields then wouldn't be affect by any of
>> this.
> But 'schemas' still might want to modify the behaviour of some of the core
> fields:
> - add a note underneath the field
> - provide a selection of choices for the resource format field
> - provide a number of checkboxes to add specific tags with special meenings
> - ...

Would this level of flexibility be desirable? It may it things very
difficult to build applications on the basis of CKAN's packages if they have
different structures. I prefer the idea of a common set of information that
is fixed with possible extensions. I think there should be a strong
community push to keep to the common set unless there are compelling reasons
(necessity) to add an extension.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ckan-discuss/attachments/20101007/69765a86/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the ckan-discuss mailing list