Hi Frederik,
I’ve looked at your diagrams [1]; yes, these go in the direction of the
two models I described earlier. I’m missing the “parent item” (the
actual collection) in A. This could be your “Stream n+1” object; there
may be a point about thinking whether that collection is conceptually
defined as the aggregation of all parent relations or as the aggregation
of all object. Also, should one of the objects in A be “stream n”?
Can you also upload the sources you used to create the bitmaps (what did
you use?)? We can make more diagrams for other cases.
B looks right to me. I’m musing about what the arrow might indicate
other than “n+1 follows n” – perhaps there is an interpretation with
inheritance.
Your point about PIDs indicating the referenced entity is immutable is a
possible major concern: As soon as we start about modifying collections,
we have objects whose structure changes (though semantics may stay –
referring back to your earlier point). I think we cannot avoid talking
about mutable PID’ed objects when thinking in terms of CRUD. So, in
general, these discussions are within scope, at least to the extent
where they concern collection membership.
Meanwhile, while continuing this via email, I think we should also use
the upcoming video call to discuss more details or work on diagrams.
Does Tuesday, March 29 15:00 CEST / 09:00 EDT still work for everyone?
Best, Tobias
[1]
https://rd-alliance.org/group/research-data-collections-wg/wiki/collecti…
——– Original Message ——–
*Subject: *Re: [rda-collection-wg] Collection requirements, streaming
*From: *fbaumgardt
*To: ****@***.***-groups.org