Tables in Feature Datasets

[JerryGarcia]

From the ArcMap help, it states the following reason for using a feature dataset:
"To organize data access based on database privileges
Sometimes, users organize data access privileges using feature datasets. All feature classes contained within a feature dataset have the same access privileges. For example, users might need to use more than one feature dataset to segment a series of related feature classes to account for differing access privileges between users. Each group has editing access to one of the feature datasets and its feature classes, but no editing access for the others."

I need to secure feature classes and tables inside a geodatabase.  I was going to use a Feature Dataset as a container since I could set the permissions at the Feature Dataset level.  Also, my data differs by spatial reference per dataset. 

Apparently, I cannot add a table to a feature dataset.  I have two tables which I need to secure with the Feature Classes in the Feature Dataset.  Are there any options?

Thanks.

[JoshWhite]

I would also like such a feature.  My reasons are for organizational purposes but I can definitely also understand access restrictions too.  Essentially ESRI's thinking is that since tables can't be included in a topology and have to spatial charateristics then they don't need to be able to be in a dataset but there are a number of other reasons for wanting to put it in a dataset.

[JensHaffner]

Being able to add tables to featuredatasets will be very useful.

[VinceAngelo]

Feature datasets exist for management of simulataneous/linked geospatial editing of
multiple layers (to assure they're using the same coordinate reference and have the
same permissions).  I can't imagine any benefit to having an object without geometry
in an FDS.  IMHO, you'd be better off requesting a folder framework for ArcGIS display/
management of database tables (without the overhead inherent in feature datasets)
For good or for bad, my opinion doesn't count.

Esri has a mechanism for requesting new features, but it's not posting to the user
formus (though lobbying for ideas in the forums is not unheard of).  A quick search
turned up a set of merged ideas along these lines.  Given the frequent misuse of
feature datasets as a "folder" when no concurrent spatial editing is intended, it
doesn't seem likely that this idea would be adopted.

- V

[Kathleen_Crombez]

When a feature class has an established relationship class with a stand alone table, the editor must have the same edit permissions on the table as they do the feature class or they will not be able to edit the layer.

Based on this reason alone, tables should be allowed to be placed in a feature dataset so they will have the same edit permissions as the feature classes that they participate in the relationship class with.

[Laura]

I agree, my database is getting messy and confusing because I can't house it all under one feature dataset. 

[Andrew_Lintz_DRGA]

Nearly 11 years laters, and a folder display/managing system in the .gbd still not implemented. And people will still fall into the resource hog trap of using FDS to organize. 

[Anonymous User]

This would still be a useful feature. How else can layers be grouped in SDE easily?