[wdmmg-dev] Proposed model overhaul

[Martin Keegan]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Friedrich Lindenberg
<friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org> wrote:

>> So, what will happen if I have a dataset which has columns which are
>> obviously classifiers, but we don't know what taxonomy they're from,
>> because it's a taxonomy only used in the City of Incognito, Alabama?
>> They surely don't go in incognito_entity?
>
> Doesn't that question lose importance with the dataset split anyway?
> This week it may be incognito, next week we can make it fooscheme, its
> just the linking to the Big Graph (TM) that will be hard? Also since
> renaming a taxonomy is an admin action, I don't think ALTER RENAME
> would kill us here?

There is no implied criticism or nitpicking in my question. I simply
do not understand how the thing will work, and want to fix that lack
of understanding.

I'll try to rephrase.

The proposed scheme involves generating a schema which has an X_entry
table, and one table per taxonomy. Are we calling all of the following
things taxonomies:

1) COFOG
2) entities (in our current sense of transactional endpoint / graph node)
3) classification schemes used only a single dataset (e.g., "AccountGroup")

and would they all give rise to table in your proposal?

Mk