<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Related Tables and Editing Permissions in Data Management Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/related-tables-and-editing-permissions/m-p/416315#M23769</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;To follow up: I ended up creating feature classes which both groups could edit.&amp;nbsp; Then I created a set of relationship classes between each FC and a group-specific table, and privileged the group-specific tables to just that group.&amp;nbsp; So, both groups can add/edit features, but can only edit their own group's table.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:18:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anonymous User</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-03-22T15:18:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Related Tables and Editing Permissions</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/related-tables-and-editing-permissions/m-p/416314#M23768</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Hello!&amp;nbsp; I work for a large organization, and frequently run into this scenario: one asset (say, a pipe under the road) is important to multiple workgroups (for this example, Envi and Hydro).&amp;nbsp; Each interested party uses versioned editing w/multiple editors to maintain their portion of the data.&amp;nbsp; This situation begs for related tables.&amp;nbsp; However, you cannot set editing privileges such that Envi can edit its table, but can't accidentally edit Hydro's table.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Do you have any suggestions for efficient table design which enforces inter-table relationships without compromising editing privileges?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Thank you!&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:57:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/related-tables-and-editing-permissions/m-p/416314#M23768</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous User</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-02-14T20:57:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Related Tables and Editing Permissions</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/related-tables-and-editing-permissions/m-p/416315#M23769</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;To follow up: I ended up creating feature classes which both groups could edit.&amp;nbsp; Then I created a set of relationship classes between each FC and a group-specific table, and privileged the group-specific tables to just that group.&amp;nbsp; So, both groups can add/edit features, but can only edit their own group's table.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:18:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/related-tables-and-editing-permissions/m-p/416315#M23769</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous User</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-03-22T15:18:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

