Difference between revisions of "Talk:Stock Relationship Ontology"
From GMOD
(→main page subheadings: new section) |
(→API considerations: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I put in each of the tables that have type_id, but that doesn't mean that all of these types should have a centrally coordinated CV. It's up to us to decide (and of course, it's not compulsory to use the central CV). | I put in each of the tables that have type_id, but that doesn't mean that all of these types should have a centrally coordinated CV. It's up to us to decide (and of course, it's not compulsory to use the central CV). | ||
| + | |||
| + | == API considerations == | ||
| + | |||
| + | One benefit of having a centrally maintained CV is that the higher level APIs can make use of them. | ||
Revision as of 09:42, 10 May 2010
Probably a good idea to keep a history of all suggestions and discussion here, while maintaining the "latest" version on the main page.
main page subheadings
I put in each of the tables that have type_id, but that doesn't mean that all of these types should have a centrally coordinated CV. It's up to us to decide (and of course, it's not compulsory to use the central CV).
API considerations
One benefit of having a centrally maintained CV is that the higher level APIs can make use of them.
