On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 09:45:56AM -0800, C K Kashyap wrote: > Quick follow up - I altered the tags like this - > > (class +Item +Entity) > (rel ttl (+IdxFold +String)) > (rel tgs (+List +Joint) itm (+Tag)) > (rel sts (+IdxFold +String)) > > (class +Tag +Entity) > (rel itm (+Joint) tgs (+Item)) > (rel v (+Ref +Link) NIL +TagVal) > > (class +TagVal +Entity) > (rel nm (+IdxFold +String)) > > This would be better for storage right? Especially if +TagVal has > additional fields such as description etc.
Yes, this model looks good. +TagVal may not be really necessary, if it is only for storage (+Tag could grow) or additional fields (as they could be added to +Tag as well), but it makes a lot of sense if a +TagVal is referred to from several or many +Tag objects. ☺/ A!ex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
