relationship indication in Person object
mmarum-sugarcrm opened this issue · 7 comments
Original author: laurentw...@gmail.com (February 13, 2013 09:39:25)
as per thread [1] the proposal is to enlarge the scope of the "relationships" field of the person object in Social-data to accommodate unidirectional relationships as well.
the related patch is attached.
[1] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/CRLDmv2Xs-A/discussion
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/detail?id=1333
From mgmarum@gmail.com on February 15, 2013 14:18:52
Patch applied in r1709.
Could this change cause some issues for consumers? We are not saying that certain values are reserved where before they were not. Could this cause issues for consumers already using these values?
It could cause an issue but I don't imagine implementations using "friends", "followers", "following" for any other purpose. Does Shindig do anything special with the relationships field?
No I don't think so, but I don't see the need to risk it right now.
the reservation of some values in line with the reserved group id values is useful to understand the existing relationship with a specific person. as no values where reserved so far this was implementation dependent so can be updated with a spec-compliant rule. as matt said, if such values where used they should have the same meaning for consistency.
Taking my cue from Walter, I'll update the language for this section to use a SHOULD key word. This would allow some wiggle room if existing implementations are using these terms. Thanks guys.
+1