Re: First portion of data structure to start from

[Anatoly Volynets <av@total-knowledge.com>]

Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:

> > IMHO,  an apprentice is a trusted student, with some extra rights/duties.
> >    
> Kind of like TA in US. Question is what exactly these rights would be?
>  
Let's get away with it.
............

> > Means - a topic may require an optional list of other topics. And yes,
> > this is one of the required relations, probably the most important. It
> > means - the person can't start topic if he/she didn't complete the
> > required topics.
> >    
> What does "complete" in this context mean to you?
>  

We have to put "complete"-idea in the wider context of work-flow.  
Regarding prerequisites  - see my another  post.

> >    Keyword to Topic relation
> >      Type: one to many
> >      Fields:
> >        keyword
> >
> >    One keyword an be used in many topics, courses and so forth, while
> >    many
> >    keywords can be used in a course, topic, explanation, etc. So it is
> >    many-to-many and involves many objects, not only topics.
> >
> > Yes, however if we do it this way - we have more complicated structure
> > with not so much of the gain. It may be done both ways, with some pros
> > and cons.
> >    
> Can we try the "full-text" search approach instead? I'm not sure on the
> details of this
> technology, but I know it exists in some database engines. Could be
> better then trying
> to implement pure keyword searches on our own.
>
>  

I am pro all possible searches!

> >    Explanation to Topic relation
> >      Type: one to many ---- if one-to-many, then Topic to Explanation:
> >    there supposed to be many explanations for a topic
> >
> >    Explanation to Person relation - I'm not sure we need this at all
> >      Type: one to many
> >
> >    
> This could mean different things. Relation 1: Explanation and its author
> Relation 2: Explanation and student, if he read it. Relation 3 (this one is
> not direct): explanation and referrer (i.e. someone using explanation in his
> topic)
>  

I am not sure we need it at all. OR we can think again about generic  
many-to-many  person to object relation

> >    Explanation
> >      Fields:
> >        name,
> >        reference to source, ---- Why we need this? If an author refers
> >    students to a text from Repository instead of writing his own text
> >    (next
> >    field)? I think this situation does not differ from usage of other
> >    objects.
> >        text
> >
> >
> > Don't you want to know - where (from outside) this text came from? The
> > Bible, a book, etc.. It's optional.
> >    
> Does "Source" in this case mean "External Source"? If so - do we need to
> have separate field for it?
> And besides - if we use external sources (i.e. for indexing/searching
> purposes), we'll need one-to-many
> relationship here.
>  
Looks like

And it looks like we need to go through specs again, God help us.

--

Anatoly Volynets, Co-Founder
total-knowledge.com
culturedialogue.org