schema question docs say ```Relations can also contain refer

Question

schema question docs say ```Relations can also contain references to other relations permissions For example a group s member relation might include the set of objects marked as member of another group indicating that the other group s members are themselves members of this group definition user definition group member can include both users and the set of members of other specific groups relation member user | group member ```

fierro · Answer

how would you represent a relation that is a composite of other relations defined on the same object That example is effectively saying a member of this group can be a user or a member of another group I want to express something like the following ``` definition container relation viewer user relation writer user relation member viewer | writer ``` I want a member to be defined as the union of the set of viewers and writers on this and only this object I could obviously do ```definition container relation viewer user relation writer user relation member container viewer | container writer ``` but I don t want it to be true that any other container s viewer could be a member of this container

Joey · Answer

permission member = viewer+ writer

Joey · Answer

if it s always the case

Joey · Answer

If not the design above is the best approach

fierro · Answer

yeah was hoping to avoid modeling `member` as a permission since it s not really a capability rather a relationship

Joey · Answer

well it is a relationship

Joey · Answer

its just a synthetic one

Joey · Answer

which is what a `permission` is

fierro · Answer

hmm ok It s not intuitively clicking for me why supporting `relation member container viewer | container writer` either isn t feasible wouldn t be a good idea if it were feasible or is just nonsensical haha

Joey · Answer

you can do that

Joey · Answer

its supported

Joey · Answer

but it can be any container

Joey · Answer

and if it is just saying member is viewer and writer

Joey · Answer

then that s what permission is for

fierro · Answer

woops sorry yeah I meant `relation member viewer | writer` the version that would be scoped to the current container But ok sounds like I need to update my mental model of the difference between relations and permissions

Joey · Answer

a `relation` is a defined data based relationhip

Joey · Answer

a `permission` is a synthetic relationship

fierro · Answer

ok I think I get it A permission is a computed set of concrete relationships A relation merely defines the blueprint for which types can relate to other types I was confused because I was thinking of permission as a synonym for capability or action when it s actually just a label for a set of relationships which is what I was trying to express via `relation member viewer | writer`

Joey · Answer

yeah

Joey · Answer

we named it `permission` because that s how it is commonly used

Joey · Answer

`permission is member = viewer + writer` would be more accurate naming

Joey · Answer

and with that name it makes sense a user is member if they are a viewer or writer

fierro · Answer

makes sense ty sir