Currently, the creator of a Collection is the owner of the Collection but not a member. member and owner are two completely separate relationships that both end on a User.
I think it would be better for the owner to be a type of member. This would be recorded under the Membership.
We could also create other types or roles. This would help with managing different levels of permissions in our policy files too.
There is the option of keeping the owner_id foreign key while implementing roles into Membership. However, I currently don't see value in such a redundancy currently.
Currently, the creator of a
Collection
is theowner
of the Collection but not amember
.member
andowner
are two completely separate relationships that both end on aUser
.I think it would be better for the
owner
to be a type ofmember
. This would be recorded under theMembership
.We could also create other
types
orroles
. This would help with managing different levels of permissions in our policy files too.There is the option of keeping the
owner_id
foreign key while implementingroles
intoMembership
. However, I currently don't see value in such a redundancy currently.