Cool ... I think I am getting a hang of it! Regards, Kashyap On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:04 AM Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
> 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 >
