This is my overall assessment of what groups “mean” as an intersection of prose requirements and what the h backend app currently has in its code. Some (most?) of this may be rehash and may elicit the “yeah, right, we already know this” response, but if that happens, yay, we’re in alignment and if you think “gosh, this is wrong in some/all ways” that’s a good thing to identify, too.
Extreme tl;dr:
- For open groups, Group resources need an additional constraint that defines what the set of valid URLs are for target documents that may be annotated within that group, and this is distinct from access or permissions. I am calling that constraint scope for shorthand, which may be a totally terrible name.
- The list of “this user’s groups” is variable and depends on scope/context.
- I’m not proposing a specific way to implement a scope constraint (yet, at least) in the data model
I am going to use the following terms as defined here. Some of this may seem overtly pedantic, but