Object/attribute collection - use hierarchies and semantic versioning

I think, moving forward, that there will be value in having the object collection distributed in distinct hierarchies with versioning and owners.

there should (imho) be CORE generic attribute types,
(bool/str/int/float/enum/address/lat-lng/street/city/state/country etc)

there should (imho) be CORE object types/templates

These should be curated/owned by anytype.
These should be distributed versioned.

There could be add-on collections (scientific | architectural | fashion | creatures | planets | etc)
There could be ‘manufacturer’ collections (brands/etc)
Each collection should have an owner, and a version, and be granularly importable…

this permits a distributed ownership model (Dell could own the object hierarchy of their computer types, for a silly example) , while also facilitating a mechanism both for declaring dependencies, and providing a mechanism to discover when expectations of the state of your dependencies has changed, such that the user can be informed that there may be some data manipulation necessary

it seem to me that without the ability to consistently import/export/sync/align objects/types/attributes and their properties, the sharing of datas is likely to be incredibly challenging between distinct islands of data… as the attributes I’ve created in my environment may or may not be compatible with the attributes you’ve created in yours

does this make sense? or does the idea need to be articulated better to be of use?

3 Likes

Whoa, a lot to unpack there. That is quite a high-density FR :wink:

In general, I like your suggestions a lot. There are some key aspects that might deserve their own FR:

  • Core vs curated vs custom attribute types and templates
  • An object type exporting and sharing model (marketplace?)
  • Object type and template versioning

There are a few similar (but not equal) FR’s for several of your sub requests. Just to link a few, but I might be missing some:

It makes sense to me to have a more central discussion on the direction object sharing should go as that impacts each of your requests. Are you willing to take your post to (or create a new one in) the “General Discussion & Q+A” category to elaborate on your thoughts around these topics?

1 Like

sure!
i was asked to put stuff like this in a feature request here, so yea, ‘s why i put it here.

i’d be perfectly happy to speak with whomever at anytype about this stuff…

the challenge with general discussion is that this stuff is really bikesheddy… i’d think the collective value would best be found in a scoped conversation with clear purpose…

i tried to touch on what i BELIEVE are a vast majority of the core needs so as to get the ball rolling, cause they’re all kinda interdependent, and while distinct, i’ve found it hard for many to understand the value of the complexity without a coalesced use case

Thanks for doing so!

I agree that it would be helpful to have some kind of central place to discuss how your ideas are related, but the ideas you share do require to be worked out a bit more to really allow space for discussion about these ideas. Would it be OK for you if I move this post to the “General Discussion & Q+A/First Impression & General Feedback” category? You could (re)use this post to link to separate feature requests for each of the ideas you share in this original topic. You can of course also link to other FR’s from another FR to indicate dependencies or relations.

OF COURSE!!! I just want to be helpful! :slight_smile:

1 Like