Consider defining a standard relation_name for plain old data

[bradh]

It would be useful if we had a way to communicate that the related_table content is "plain old data" (INTEGER, TEXT, REAL values), such that clients could present that.

That might imply another requirements class (so that every column is one of the expected types).

At the very least we need to know what to put in the relation_name for a non-media relationship.

[tabinfl]

Could punt to other for now, at least until we get around to defining other types of relationships (maybe beyond too).

[jyutzler]

Yes, this would be another requirements class.

My preference would be to punt on this as part of the IE unless you or someone else is willing to test it out (producer and consumer).

Something we're going to have to consider is how we're going to version extensions since it is plausible that we will publish this extension with 2 requirements classes and come back later and add more. But that's a SWG issue.

[bradh]

I would like to have a go at this, unless there are objections. I'm currently thinking simple_attributes.

I don't have a concept for the extension versioning, but it seems like a general problem. Perhaps GPKG 1.3 should have an extension_version column in the gpkg_extensions table.

[jyutzler]

No objection.

[bradh]

Resolved by #30