[Zope-CMF] Dublin Core Subject Qualifier Implementation

[sean.upton@uniontrib.com]

I would think it would be at the registry level where this would make sense.
Initially I hadn't even thought of this.

This is an interesting idea, but I was originally thinking that this was out
of the scope of this, and that this would be an implementation detail,
primarily because many of these vocabularies are essentially read-only, and
supported by their backing organization in different ways.  I know that for
IPTC subjects, for example, you can get an XML-file right off their we site
or implement a relational mapping of their 3-tier subject system.  Now that
I think about it, though, it would be a good idea to support mutable and
non-mutable vocabularies.

I think I will refine my spec to include user-defined / mutable registries
as well as read-only, and support a get/set style access...

The registries start to look like catalogs (but also need a data-store,
likely something with both support for tree and tabular structures of
subject codes, which might rule out Catalog metadata tables) - how I plan to
implement my first try at an implementation of this is likely ParsedXML +
ZCatalog + Caching of lookups.

Stuff I plan to support with this:

- mutable and non-mutable vocabularies
- dictionary-like attribute access for the tool object to an underlying
tuple when passed a key containing a namespace:code key
- get methods for non-dictionary-like access to info, primarily used when
the namespace/vocab and code are not in the same string, so they are passed
as 2 individual parameters.
- support for implicit participation 
- optional icon support (defined in the interface, but not all tools or
vocabularies within them would need to support it)
- looking up parent categories
- creating new vocabularies

I'm sure I'll think up more to add to this list.

Sean

-----Original Message-----
From: marc lindahl [mailto:marc@bowery.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 6:54 AM
To: zope-cmf@zope.org
Subject: Re: [Zope-CMF] Dublin Core Subject Qualifier Implementation




> From: Tim Hoffman <timhoffman@cams.wa.gov.au>
>
> My wish would be to have a metatdata registry (a bit like the types
> registry)
> where one could add metadata elements, plus bind getter and setter methods
> to each element.

I like it but...

Don't you mean have getter and setting methods for the registry?

Are these registry's starting to look like Catalogs, or is it just me?


_______________________________________________
Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org
http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf

See http://www.zope.org/Products/PTK/Tracker for bug reports and feature
requests