Feature Requests Metadata structure

Sorry that I didn't get to reply directly earlier but, as Joonas knows very well, that feedback item is routed directly to me.  Thanks Joonas.  

I'd really like you to explain a little what you're after with point 2.

You mention having a "notes" field for classes, properties, value lists, and then "objects" (do you mean object types, or actual objects?).  Would this be some content visible for administrators, or some content you expect to be shown in the client?  Can you give some examples of what you would use this for?

You also then talk about a register of projects in the same point.  This would be some mechanism for tying structure together?  I can see the benefit of understanding that graph of relationships (especially considering change management), but is this exactly what you're thinking about?  Again: can you give some specific use-cases?

Hi!
I was thinking only for an administrator.

I our case we have at the moment a vault that contains 3 different use cases (and yes it has been discussed if there should be more vaults instead but we have some metadata that connect things and therefor I would like to keep it together in one vault ).

So a note field could be like more explaining why a property definition is made and how it is used if is isn't clear from the title.

About the register of projects is exactly as you write, to tying the structure together. One use case could be when doing export/import between vaults if it could be added to filter on project. But mostly I would say it would be good just to have a good structure

I understand.

For the first point: we do have description fields available for workflows and states, but not wider.  I can see the value here, although I have another proposal which maybe ties the two together...

What if we were able to gather together information about how an item "sits" within the system, and use that to generate a description and visualisation?  For example: we know that a property is used by some views, it's a precondition in a workflow, it's included in some metadata card configuration, and it's referenced in a vault application configuration.  All of that together would give you a real-life (and living) view of what the property definition does in the system, rather than just a piece of text which may only give you a snapshot of part of what that property did at one point in time.

This is a theoretical "what if we had this" question right now.  If we had something like this, would it perhaps give you the context you were after?

Wow that would be super awesome if that could be made! Much better then my suggestion since it would like you say be updated all the time and you wouldn't have to worry if you´re about to delete something if it is use or where.

That is a brilliant idea, Craig. It would really be useful!

To be very clear: we're not near that just yet, but I wanted to step away from the current "let's add one more descriptive field" approach, and look at how we can transform that administrative experience.

Understood! But you guys seems to be pretty productive so I´m looking forward for this. Maybe done in 26.8 or something like that ;)

I love your confidence, but the timeline may be a little longer than that.

Please do keep ideas like this coming.  Whilst I cannot guarantee that we can deliver everything, what I can guarantee is that these ideas are reviewed by product managers and often lead into work we do in the future.  Sometimes that work takes longer than we want, sometimes we cannot prioritise these things as highly as we'd like, but they are all reviewed and we all want to build a better experience for users and admins.

I love your confidence, but the timeline may be a little longer than that.

Please do keep ideas like this coming.  Whilst I cannot guarantee that we can deliver everything, what I can guarantee is that these ideas are reviewed by product managers and often lead into work we do in the future.  Sometimes that work takes longer than we want, sometimes we cannot prioritise these things as highly as we'd like, but they are all reviewed and we all want to build a better experience for users and admins.