Message-ID: <484411B4.4020801@commandprompt.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:28:52 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
CC: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, w^3 <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Product directory
References: <937d27e10806020130l418d1730o84de8773f1f182f5@mail.gmail.com>	
	<20080602113349.GA8921@fetter.org>
	<937d27e10806020458o68717cd7sb7e0424338ff5d19@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <937d27e10806020458o68717cd7sb7e0424338ff5d19@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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