Core schema seems insufficient #273

New issue

Open

opened 2020-08-06 16:57:41 +00:00 by gburd · 0 comments

gburd commented

2020-08-06 16:57:41 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Quoting @ncalexan, "[when defining vocabularies] we can say a thing needs “to be” an enum (:db.type/ref) but we can’t say “and these are the valid enum cases :db.cardinality/*“. (And the transactor doesn’t handle that value restriction at all.)"

@rnewman you've added the core schema initially; do you think it's reasonable to expand it going forward? Do you think having a subset of the bootstrap transaction defined as a special thing is valuable?

If core schema is viewed through a lens of multiple mentats figuring out if they're compatible with each other, it seems insufficient. Currently, if two instances agree on the core schema, their transactions are not necessarily compatible with each other. Quoting @ncalexan, "[when defining vocabularies] we can say a thing needs “to be” an enum (`:db.type/ref`) but we can’t say “and these are the valid enum cases `:db.cardinality/*`“. (And the transactor doesn’t handle that value restriction at all.)" @rnewman you've added the core schema initially; do you think it's reasonable to expand it going forward? Do you think having a subset of the bootstrap transaction defined as a special thing is valuable?