[piw] Re: [pcplantdb] relationships implementation
webmaster at pfaf.org
Mon Mar 28 05:42:31 EST 2005
John Schinnerer wrote:
>>The simplest form is
>>object | links_to
>>plant A | Plant A Guild
>>plant A | Plant B Guild
>>plant B | Plant B Guild
>>Backing up a bit... do we really have to manually define every
>>possible guild PIW is to represent??
>>I thought the idea was to develop a system that allowed people
>>to explore possible guilds. i.e. pull up several plants/objects
>>and compare their needs/benefits to see if they would be compatible.
> Thanks for pointing this out Richard...
> I also thought the idea was to create a system which could
> extract/extrapolate guilds based on data stored about plants, with maybe a
> few explicit examples of 'canned' guilds.
Yes a very good point.
I'm thinking from a technical pov, in if we are to have a concept like a
guild (really a list of related plants), how could we represent this on
To my mind the simplest way is to have the guild as a seperate
object, linking to each plant. Other way to represent it get a bit
complicated. It does not necessarily mean that the guild object is
explicitly created. It would be technically posible to
have links like
plant A | Guild C
plant B | Guild C
but not actually create Guild C. If a user did click a link
a page just listing the plants linking to that guild could be
> And yes, another good reason to have at least a plain English document
> that describes what it is we're actually trying to do here...
I supose thats whats happening. Trying to work out what were trying to do!
More information about the pcplantdb