Talk:Drupal

Security

However, sites that are using the Organic Groups module discussed above has its own access control mechanism based on the group structure which is more appropriate for sites already using that module.

no main verb

• There is no verb forming a grammatical sentence. To try to understand the intended statement, it is first necessary to resolve the dependent clauses:

ambiguity

• There is an unresolvable ambiguity here for the non-expert reader (myself included).

It is unclear to me what the intended referent of has is in the paragraph

There are 2 possible ways to parse this:

• parallel subordinate clauses

The first subordinate clause is restrictive, but contains an expansive subordinate sub-subclause

Since the subject, sites, is plural, it appears that access control mechanism refers to organic groups module ; if so, a subordinating conjunction is needed:

• ... sites
  • that are using the Organic Groups module discussed above (restrictive) - select subset of all sites
    • , which has its own access control mechanism based on the group structure... [expansive] - provide further detail about module

> sites (using module [module has mechanism] )

This subordinate clause is followed by another subordinate clause about something appropriate, the antecedent of which is unclear:

• ... structure is appropriate

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is based on structure [structure is appropriate] ] ] )

sites that use module, which has mechanism, which is based on structure, which is appropriate

a that b, which c, which d

• an unwieldy and unlikely chain of dependent clauses.

• mechanism is appropriate {for sites}

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is based on structure] + [mechanism is appropriate] ] )

a that b, which c + b, which d

if c and d are parallel, both referring to module, a conjunction is required

sites that use module, which has mechanism, which is based on structure and which is appropriate

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is based on structure] and [structure is appropriate] ] )

This produces awkward nested dependent clauses, [b, which c, which d] - grammatically forbidden in English.

The solution is to refactor by promoting the second [expansive] dependant clause to an adverbial of the main clause, and which refers to the first a (restrictive) subordinate:

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is based on structure]  : {structure is appropriate} ] )

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is based on structure] ] : {mechanism is appropriate} )

> sites (using module [module has mechanism [mechanism is based on structure] ] ) : {module is appropriate}

> {module is appropriate} for sites (that use module [since module has mechanism [based on structure] ] )

However, it is more appropriate for sites that are already using the Organic Groups module discussed above, since it has its own access control mechanism based on the group structure.

verb concordance

the other possible, but less-likely interpretation is that the referrent of access control mechanism was intended to be sites, insted of module. This case would require a plural verb and possessive pronoun:

>{module is appropriate} for sites (using module) [since sites have mechanism]

However, it is more appropriate for sites that are using the Organic Groups module discussed above, since they have their own access control mechanism based on the group structure.

But this is a logical disjunction.

--Infomaniac 18:24, 19 January 2011 (PST)