| Wiki Markup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Div | ||||
| }[||||
| Generic Group Service Home]{div} |
Questions
Note that it is better to place discussion points inline as sub-bullets, than to put them in comments where the context and flow is harder to reconstruct.
- In the workshops, the ability to create sets of objects (or groups as they are called here) emerged as a fundamental theme. Some groups are short-lived; others are relatively permanent. People talked about being able to associate documents and annotations with sets. I'm being long-winded! My question is: Is "group" the right name given that people might assume this relates to groups of users and people? Or would this group service extend to those kinds of entities?
- Unlicensed user: Thanks for raising this question, Chris. My thinking is that the name 'group' is a generic name used only at the service layer, and likely wouldn't be user-facing. Terms such as "sets" might be applied to CollectionObjects in the user interface, while terms such as "groups" (and other concepts, such as "roles") would apply to Persons and Principles.
You've also raised an important point - that there may need to be a time dimension for groups. - Aron
- Unlicensed user: Thanks for raising this question, Chris. My thinking is that the name 'group' is a generic name used only at the service layer, and likely wouldn't be user-facing. Terms such as "sets" might be applied to CollectionObjects in the user interface, while terms such as "groups" (and other concepts, such as "roles") would apply to Persons and Principles.
...