RE: [higgins-dev] Revised Higgins data model goals

["Jim Sermersheim" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> "Paul Trevithick" paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 4/18/06 7:14 PM >> (
mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> )

<snip>
>The Raj/Tony kind are supposed to be captured with [10]: Contexts are
>associated with other Contexts in 1:1 or 1:M relationships.

ok, I get it now. I'm just left with the use-case question.

>The other kind isn't explicitly stated anywhere. Perhaps we need to
add back
>in an explicit separate goal related to the ability to
unidirectionally
>correlate DigitalSubjects across contexts and to the "implied" Context
to
>sub-Context relationships that are thereby implied by the DS-to-DS
>unidirectional relationship? 

Well, if when talking about "context relationships" we mean both the
Raj/Tony types as well as the DS to DS implicit types, and if [10]
refers to the Raj/Tony type, then it would be useful to distinguish
between them.

FWIW, I only had the Raj/Tony type in mind when I originally asked the
question. If when talking about context relationships, we only mean the
Raj/Tony type, then I don't think we need to add anything to distinguish
(people just need to know the terms are constrained).

<snip>
I understand/agree with the rest

Jim