So I guess the question becomes whether it is appropriate to do it this
way in gdmxml. Any opinions?

<hans/>

* Stan Mitchell [Tue,  9 Jul 2002 at 23:12 -0700]
<quote>
> Yes, it does seem that your suggestion reduces redundancy
> without sacrificing search capability.
> 
> Hans Fugal wrote:
> 
> >But then you have to store call-numbers possibly many times. For
> >example, a professional researcher would doubtless perform many searches
> >in any particular US Census. For that Census the repository, source, call
> >number and description would all be the same for every repository-source
> >record. The only unique information in each record would be the
> >activity-id. Yet if we take out the activity-id from repository-source
> >we get rid of that redundancy. AFAICS there is no loss of querying power
> >when we do so - search has all three keys, so if you want to know which
> >searches you did on a particular call-number, you only have to query the
> >search table with the repository-id and source-id.  Or am I still
> >missing something?
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to