On 25.4.12 12:01, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2012-04-25 11:48, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.04.2012 um 11:40 schrieb Jukka Zitting:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Julian
Reschke<julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote:
Would it make sense to "optimize" the persistence in that we
wouldn't store
the primary type when it happens to be nt:unstructured?
Yes, though the default type should be something like
"oak:unstructured" or "jr3:unstructured" that isn't orderable like
"nt:unstructured".
Do we need a namespace ? How about just "Unstructured" ?
a) I wouldn't be surprised if there's code out there assuming that
namespace names are always prefixed.
b) Having "nt:unstructured" and "Unstructured" be different is ...
surprising. So we probably want a different term...
((nt:)?void | (nt:)?any | (nt:)?unknown | (nt:)?node | (nt:)?top)?
Michael
