Group items tagged

eg. service type

eg. service instance

ie. subject

eg. event message text

eg. action performed on managed resource (eg. 'update' action on resource 'hotel')

eg. managed resource being accessed

boolean was_successful

include in event message text

with what granted roles? from which organization?

permissions required: retrieve these resource types

content (license) owned by organization different than user's

clone = retrieve, then create ie. required permissions: {retrieve,create:}

generally speaking, there can be a few independent but overlapping mechanism that will control who is allowed to do what with content: 1. any subject's access to the content itself can be controlled via authorization rules (ie. required vs granted permissions) enforced via system-wide resource-based access control 2. content licensors (~content owners) can restrict the usage of their content by: * whom - ie. content licensee (legally/commercially represented by an organization) * how - eg. reuse as unmodified, create derivatives, composite, redistribute, etc * where - ie. distribution channels their content can be used (eg. only on hotel's vbrochure site, but not in any ids/gds channels) * when - temporal restrictions may limit scope of content license grant by: start, end, duration, season, etc 3. content licensees can further filter or funnel content available to them (resulting from a combination of license granted to them and access control) based on their own criteria (eg. generate a templated hotel presentation only if: at least 1 textual description, 5 photos and 1 video for a hotel is available with a license to combine them (composite content)

permission required: retrieve hotel descriptive content(?) owned by independent organization

displayed where? on specific channels?

if ecm/vfml is to manage content licensing as a third party between organizations (content licensors & licensees) shouldn't ecm *know* if the user('s organization) has rights to use the content in question? is this question posed to the user (with required explicit acknowledgement) purely to absolve vfml from liability issues that may result from licensing disagreements?

this being the user's (organization's) 'version'or 'view'of the hotel, since this user normally wouldn't/shouldn't be granted permissions to replace content for a hotel on a different organization's 'view'or 'version' of the same hotel

this implies that *at least* one version of such (temporarily) replaceable content needs to be managed/maintaned to allow reverting what if, deliberately, ignorantly or maliciously, a user replaces the same piece of--textual or any type, really--content for this hotel n times? will all n versions be required to be managed as an undo history? the user's ''original content'' might have been version 1, but equally might have been 1 mean: - previous version of the content, regardless of which user - initial version of that content attached to the hotel regardless of which user created/updated it and ignoring which organization owns it?, or, -

note, the 'i' here, is mr. MARTIN FOWLER!! and of course, eric evans hails from domain driven design fame

this is why during every sprint, i reiterate that the data model up approach to designing the system is OH SO WRONG but nobody listens

damn baggage from  eons ago!!!

think of it as internal design documentation when you revisit this code 8 months from now: - based on nothing but your well-chosen ;) package/class/method/variable names, will you recall all of your current design intentions and rationale? likely not - when you hand-off this code to another software engineer, how easy will it be to mostly rtfm? will you have to waste time preparing design/implementation notes specifically for the hand-off? if this is the case because the code is unreadable and not self-guiding and there's not already at least high level design notes in a wiki, you're doing it wrong!

DO NOT DO THIS this is just bad design

this might also stink of poor design ymmv