Re: Collection Item Represenations

[Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:54:20 -0400, Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>  
wrote:

> 1. Entries - The represenation of entries is via an atom:entry.
> 2. Comments - Since CommentsAreEntries[2], this is also atom:entry.

Absolutely.

> 3. Subjects/Categories - Given the sad state of affairs of the format
>    there is nothing there to reuse.

No, we need to invent something here. Not sure what that should be, but it  
should at least be something that could capture all kinds of ontologies;  
both home-grown and public ones (like Dewey or IPTC NewsCodes).

> 5. Templates - Let's maximize the reuse and let
>    templates be entries also.

Why should templates ever be differentiated from «other resources»?  
Because they're mostly textual? What if I want to upload an HTML document  
which is a resource (i.e. an example page) to my entry? Shouldn't that  
deserve its own wrapping as well?

Nah. Resources are resources, and they can all be managed natively without  
any wrapping, no matter if they're textual or not. I think templates  
should be managed exactly the same way as images, HTML files, text  
documents, and so on.

For those who disagree with this: why should we _not_ manage templates the  
same way as other resources? What kind of management does templates need  
that images, text documents, HTML files, videos etc., doesn't also need  
(if we look hard enough)?

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg    -=|=-     http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»