<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think AnalyzerBusinessGroup will do for now.<div><br></div><div>If someone has profound philosophical objections to that name I guess we could create a synonym property, and we'd have to persuade analyzer to read that also. But it's much more important that every tool is using the same property than what that property is called.</div><div><br></div><div>Tool developers (I'm thinking especially of Saiku developers here, and also Benny),</div><div><br></div><div>Is there any extra metadata you wish was attached to members? (We already have FONT_NAME, FORE_COLOR, DISPLAY_INFO, etc., from Microsoft's de facto standard.) If so, let's document and standardize it, so people can build metadata into their model that works for multiple front-ends.</div><div><br></div><div>Julian<br><div><br><div><div>On Nov 21, 2011, at 11:47 PM, Diethard Steiner wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Hi Julian,</div><div>Thanks a lot for your feedback! For the Analyzer we have to define an annotation called AnalyzerBusinessGroup. As long as any other GUI client supplier is willing to follow the same naming convention it's ok. As a OLAP schema designer I just don't want to come into the situation where I have to define different names for the same functionality just because there is a client specific naming.</div>
<div>Best regards,</div><div>Diethard<br><br></div><div><br>On 22 Nov 2011, at 00:49, Julian Hyde <<a href="mailto:jhyde@pentaho.com">jhyde@pentaho.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><br><div><div>On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Diethard Steiner wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<div>Lately I hear quite some people asking about some kind of folder structure to allow easier visual presentation of dimensions and measures (quite similar to what the Analyzer only feature AnalyzerBusinessGroup does). The idea is relatively simple: In the OLAP schema we should be able to define folders and sub-folders to better categorize dimension levels and measures.</div>
<div>Now each client tool could come up with their own implementation and syntax to cover this (probably not so good), so I was wondering if this could be directly supported by Mondrian?</div><div>Any ideas? Suggestions?</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div>It's a good idea, and it doesn't need any explicit support from Mondrian. Just a convention for the name of the member property that should hold the folder name. However, as I said in <a href="http://jira.pentaho.com/browse/MONDRIAN-1042">http://jira.pentaho.com/browse/MONDRIAN-1042</a>, I can't remember the name of the property.<div>
<br></div><div>Benny, What does Analyzer use?</div><div><br></div><div>Julian</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Mondrian mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Mondrian@pentaho.org">Mondrian@pentaho.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian">http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian</a></span><br>
</div></blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Mondrian mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Mondrian@pentaho.org">Mondrian@pentaho.org</a><br>http://lists.pentaho.org/mailman/listinfo/mondrian<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>