5 thoughts on “Looking at CMIS 1.0, Thinking of 2.0

  1. Hi Laurence,

    First, I can assure you there is the will for a CMIS 2.0. There even is already a “Proposals for 2.0” section in the OASIS CMIS issue tracker.

    I agree that Hierarchical Metadata and Tagging will need to be enhanced. No consensus (or even proposals to be honest) emerged during the 1.0 timeframe.

    Regarding heterogenous domain models, I think what you want can be achieved but vendors will need to add some flexibility to the CMIS connectors. What’s needed for your example to work is for vendors to allow application developers to say that, while someone implemented the AIIMContent InfoManTopics field internally as a field “infomantop” with internal namespace “http://example.com/app/aiimcontent/v1”, it must be exposed to CMIS clients with the name “InfoManTopics”. But this has really to do with vendors, not the CMIS spec.

    Regarding the ability to query relationships, I actually raised this last Monday in the TC, and it’s been agreed that it’s repository-specific to have this — meaning that a well constructed repository will give you queries on relationships (otherwise I agree with you that relationships would be pretty useless), see http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CMIS-602. What’s missing though in 1.0 is the ability to express transitive closure of relationships, which is quite useful in semantic modeling.


    • Florent, thanks for the comments, here are some thoughts…

      – I know there is enthusiasm for working on the next version, but we aren’t there yet and the momentum could always slow down, though I hope not.

      – As for hierarchical metadata, line 477 has some confusion ” Choices MAY be hierarchically presented.”, which implies that there was some thought. However, not having it in 1.0 isn’t a failure.

      – Domain models, you are right that the vendors would need to adjust their support. It would be a challenge, but it is something that would make life easier everywhere. As I think about it more, the hurdles are significant, but worth it.

      – Transitive relationships can be grabbed if the query capability is there and you use sub-queries. A simpler way of doing things would be great, but it would be a challenge to add to the standard if most of the vendors don’t have underlying support.


Comments are closed.