Re: [cti] Re: MVP Discussion

Jason Keirstead wrote this message on Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 17:09 +0000:
> I think the root of what Terry is trying to get at is less about source of truth and more about relationship context. The concensus was among many of the practitioners *and* vendors that if we have a relationship linking two objects, that relationship should exist independant of version - aka implicit versioning - so that if I version an object I do not have to re-issue relationships, rather those relationships are valid for all versions. There wasn't anyone who really backed the idea of having to recreate relationships every time you versioned something.
> 
> We would therefore assume that we want the same to hold true for translations - if I translate an object, all of the relationships relevant to that object should be maintained.

I agree that the relationship/translation should be maintained for all
revisions of an object...

When thinking about this, it is always best to think about how it would
work for a fully revision away product (that has access to all revisions),
and a product that is minimally away of revisions (one that just keeps
the latest object if it's revision is newer than the current one...

In the case of translations pointing to a specific revision, that
revision specification should just be advisory, and not required...

-- 
John-Mark