AnsweredAssumed Answered


Question asked by rdanner on Nov 19, 2005
Latest reply on Dec 1, 2005 by rdanner
I have been doing a lot of thinking about the M2 model these days.  In the passed I have mentioned that hard content (physical docs) is something I think the system should be able to handle.  By handle I mean carry metadata on the object, be searchable, and be able to apply workflow and librarian functionality around. 

It seems like I may have come across another type.  Remote content (hard and soft).

The more I think about it the more I am tempted to say that the content model is independent of these things (hard, digital, local, remote).  Currently the only cohesion with the concept is the fact that the cm:content carries a content property. 

So here is what I am thinking (blast me if I am out in space): 

refactor cm:content (take out the content property).

Create a couple of aspects:

Digital content (this repository owns and controls)
    Properties: d:content

Digital remote content (this repository tracks this content but doesn’t carry it)
      Perhaps URL or whatever id the retrieval system would need to get a hold of the thing.

Hard content (physical photo, contract, etc):
     Location info
    Condition information
    Library card info
    Contact info for access to doc

From the user perspective not much would change.  If you do a create action or upload content we assume you are dealing with digital content and assign the digital aspect..

If you do an add content we ask what kind you are adding.

Also this allows documents to be both digital and hard (in the case of a conversion).  I haven’t given that enough thought.  The aspect seems to be a better option then creating types because types create an explosion of the model (cartiasn product).

If this a good idea then maybe we can vet it out here a little bit and then port the results to the wikki.  If it's a bad idea then I'll just have to take my beatings as they come :)

Any thoughts?