I got to thinking... I really should have done that in more than one source. Something like
<source id="fladstrand-marriages"> <citation-part citation-part-type="title"> Marriages in Fladstrand Parish </citation-part> </source> <source id="p199" higher-source="fladstrand-marriages"> <citation-part citation-part-type="page">199</citation-part> </source> <source id="film0049002" higher-source="fladstrand-marriages"> <citation-part citation-part-type="film"> 0049002 </citation-part> </source> <citation-part-type id="title">Title</citation-part-type> <citation-part-type id="film">Film Number</citation-part-type> <citation-part-type id="page">Page Number</citation-part-type> * Hans Fugal [Fri, 5 Jul 2002 at 17:50 -0600] <quote> > I'm documenting a source in gdmxml now, and as I expected a lot of > questions have been raised in my mind. > > First is the issue of citation-parts. The citation-part is used to > store citation parts such as title, author, page, etc. As it stands now > I would document "Marriages in Fladstrand Parish (Film #0049002), p. > 199)" [1] as > > <source id="1" /> > <citation-part source="1" citation-part-type="1"> > Marriages in Fladstrand Parish > </citation-part> > <citation-part source="1" citation-part-type="2">0049002</citation-part> > <citation-part source="1" citation-part-type="3">199</citation-part> > <citation-part-type id="1">Title</citation-part-type> > <citation-part-type id="2">Film #</citation-part-type> > <citation-part-type id="3">p.</citation-part-type> > > But it seems natural to put the citation-part elements inside a source > element, like this > > <source id="1"> > <citation-part citation-part-type="1"> > Marriages in Fladstrand Parish > </citation-part> > <citation-part citation-part-type="2">0049002</citation-part> > <citation-part citation-part-type="3">199</citation-part> > </source> > <citation-part-type id="1">Title</citation-part-type> > <citation-part-type id="2">Film #</citation-part-type> > <citation-part-type id="3">p.</citation-part-type> > > That's easy enough to specify, and it makes sense because there's one > and only one source per citation-part. Which brings us to > source-groups. These two relationships hold: One source-group has zero > to many sources, and one source belongs to zero to many source-groups. > In a database we definitely want a source-group-source table to get rid > of this many-to-many relationship. But again we can collapse things a > bit: > > <source id="1"> > <source-group-source source-group="1"/> > <source-group-source source-group="2"/> > </source> > <source-group id="1">group 1</source-group> > <source-group id="2">group 2</source-group> > > Does this approach seem valid? (This would apply in many other places > throughout the spec.) > > You'll probably also noticed I have decided to leave off the "-id" on > the end of IDREF attributes. It just feels redundant to have it there. > > Also, in my hand-cooked examples I used the ID "1" (for example) more > than once, but for different attributes. Is that valid, or do IDs need > to be unique even when identifying different element types? > > Hans :) > > 1. http://fugal.net/andreas/first_fugl/fugl1.htm footnote 2. > -- > "Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it." > -- Mark Twain > > _______________________________________________ > gdmxml mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://fugal.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gdmxml </quote> -- "Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it." -- Mark Twain _______________________________________________ gdmxml mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fugal.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gdmxml