Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
>
>>> price text -- Pricing info (where relevant)
>> Price is too complicated to model, and suffers from "cache coherency"
>> issues. Pointing to a web site, where appropriate, would handle this
>> better.
>
> Agreed but a) we already display that data and b) it's useful to give
> users a ballpark figure, even if something like "$99.99US as at
> 15/12/2007"
I have to go with fetter here. Pricing is not our concern.
>
>> and more than one license.
>
> Again, not sure I see a need. Either it's commercial, OSS, or freeware
> - I don't think there's much scope to have more than one (the obvious
> exception is something like "$99.99, or free to educational users" but
> I'd just class that as commercial). I don't want to list the actual
> OSS licence used as folks can decide whether a product meets with
> their personal ethics once they visit it's homepage.
>
+1
>> The above schema handles these things. Might we want to break
>> "publisher" out into a separate table?
>
> Possibly. Makes the coding & management a little more tricky though.
> If we were to do that perhaps it should be part of a larger project to
> have a directory of vendors/publishers etc for news, events, services
> and products.
Yeah I mentioned this in my previous post. Publisher really needs to be
pushed out. There is entirely too much redundant information that can be
accumulated.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake