Re: Reviving the features draft?

[Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@xxxxxxx>]

On Apr 11, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Teo Hui Ming wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Jan Algermissen
> <algermissen1971@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Teo Hui Ming wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Jan Algermissen
> > > <algermissen1971@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The semantics are different! The nearest equivalent to what I  
> > > > need would
> > be
> > > > > <app:collection href='http://example.org/collection'>
> > > > >  <link rel='rdf:type'
> > > > >        href='http://example.org/orderProcessor/>
> > > > > </app:collection>
> > >
> > > Interesting. in your use case, is it true that
> > > app:categories/atom:category can't be used to differentiate between
> > > collection?
> >
> > I'd say that categories apply to the entries in a collection and  
> > are not
> > directly meta data about the collection itself.
>
> I was thinking if  "this collection accepts order request" is
> equivalent to  "this collection is an order acceptor", perhaps
> <category term="order-request"/> is sufficient. I just curious if
> there are cases when this doesn't work

There is a huge difference between accepting to store order documents  
(e.g. for archiving) and to
act as the seller role in the classic SCM processes :-)

Jan



> > But I can't really see what is so problematic about the feature  
> > solution.
> > It is very lean and intuitive, IMHO.  I am
> > having trouble to see what problems the draft carries.
>
> I don't have issue with feature extension. :-)
>
> > Jan
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Teo Hui Ming
>
>
>
> --
> Teo Hui Ming
> teohuiming.work at gmail dot com