Home Projects Jobs Clientele Contact


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DB structure: Dialog of Texts (DoT)

Anatoly Volynets wrote:
> Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>> - Is dialog_of_texts really course-level thing?
>> Actually this is more of a question to Anatoly. Spec says
>> it's course-level object, but I suspect what is meant is that
>> DoT is at the same level as course (i.e. completely independent)
> Yes, it is completely independent. What else could it mean "course
> level" (am just curious)
That it's part of a course. Perhaps that it's top-level part of a course.
Obviously, I'm not the only one who doesn't find it 100% clear ;-)
>> I guess it could be referenced from courses/topics/etc. in same
>> way as any other media object.... I think this needs more detailing
>> in specification.
> Yes, it is totally free to use in any way possible, including
> references. I do not follow what it means "media object" here. It is
> my English, probably, let's me down :)
"Media object" could be picture, video, music, DoT. They are independent
and relationships to them are not (probably) related in database
structure. Instead
references to them are made by placing special tags in text.

Now, for administrative, querying, etc. purposes, we may actually still
keep track of
their relationships in tables, either by updating relationship tables at
time or by running periodic batch job over all texts and collecting
stats from there.
I just don't see why that'd be needed yet.
>> - I'm not sure we really need separate ACL for texts_in_dialog
>> Again - needs clarification in spec - i.e. can texts be included
>> in different dialogs without being modified.
> Never thought about this possibility. My first answer is "Yes".
> Remember, first of all, they are excerpts from classical works. DoT is
> the most free UMO out of all.
"Yes - texts can be shared", or "Yes - you are right, they can't be shared"?
And at the same time remember - text in this case is something far more
complex then just text field in a table. We still need to work on that.
>>  Is cross-referencing
>> between texts in a dialog actually separate from texts themselves
>> (logically it can be, but does our data structure reflect that at all?)
> Read specs:
> Link To (between texts in DoT)
> It is an object featuring:
> Two linked texts
> Their relationship, such as:
> Contradicts
> Develops
> Complements
> Repeats
> Mocks
> Does smth. else
> Specs had been well changed here, as I found out.  I have to think it
> over, although, it looks rather reasonable at the first glance.

Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO

Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008