> I think DC.Relation.isPartOf (and the inverse relation > DC.Relation.hasPart) is a good idea, but why would you use "dumb > string-matching"? Why not use the (handle) URI of the items? e.g. the > DSpace item representing the issue would have dc.relation.haspart fields > each equal to the handle of an article, and each article could have an > ispartof field equal to the handle of the issue record.
Because we weren't wanting to have a separate record for the issue; we just wanted to be able to group articles.. Dorothea -- Dorothea Salo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Digital Repository Librarian AIM: mindsatuw University of Wisconsin Rm 218, Memorial Library (608) 262-5493 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ DSpace-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
