A few thoughts on repository-source ...
IMHO & from an OO point-of-view, repository-source seems to be a
separate class. It represents the association between no or one instance
of source and no or one instance of repository, with the constraint that
there be at least one source or one repository. When a search succeeds,
then a source and repository are tied together, and information such as
call-number and description of the condition of the particular source,
are stored in the repository-source instance.
Another way of looking at it, is as the link between the Administration
and Evidence submodels, but with perhaps a closer link to Admin.
Maybe <repository-source> could be a child of <search>.
Hans Fugal wrote:
>One repository exists in one place, so it seems natural to make
>repository a child element of place. I've also made place-part a child
>of place for the same reason.
>The GDM calls for a sequence number on each place-part of a place, and
>an ordering scheme of the place-parts of a place. With XML order matters
>(unless we say it doesn't) so I see no need for a sequence number; it is
>On those many-to-many relationships: repository-source isn't as clean
>cut in my mind as source-group-source was, and now I'm not as clear
>about that either. For one thing, the naming becomes hairy. Naturally
>we don't want to make source a child element of repository, because a
>source could exist in more than one repository; the other way around
>is even more ludicrous. So, we need to reference the sources in the
>repository or reference the repositories in the sources. So I think perhaps:
> <source id="film0049002">
> <citation-part citation-part-type="film">0049002</citation-part>
> <repository-source idref="fhl"/>
>That name, "repository-source", makes perfect sense in database context,
>but I think it's confusing in this context, where it is a child element
>of the source element. Perhaps "repository-ref".
>Maybe we can even allow a repository-source element from either a source
>element or a repository element - that may be harder to deal with in
>implementation though, and there is no way to avoid the possibilitiy of
>duplicates. So my question for anyone who has an opinion is which is
>better: to put it in one of the elements (i.e. a source element has a
>repository-ref child element), or to have a separate (non-child)
gdmxml mailing list