Chris and others,
The Hydra team have decided that normal Hydra objects will all subscribe
to the same content model which defines metadata datastreams. This is
actually adequate for the parent of an aggregation object - it does not
also need to subscribe to another content model to define any
content-bearing datastreams.
However, it would be useful to have aggregation parents subscribe to a
content model 'genericAggregationParent' simply so that they could be
identified (perhaps, say, to trigger a specific behaviour in the search
and discovery interface). Is there any harm in defining such a content
model and referencing a datastream already declared in the common
metadata model? Is it possible/better to declare a content model
referencing *no* datastreams (what do you do about the SDef reference)?
Or?
Advice would be welcome!
Best
Richard
___________________________________________________________________
Richard Green
Consultant to the University of Hull IT Systems Group
managing the CLIF and Hydra (Hull) Projects
http://edocs.hull.ac.uk
http://www.hull.ac.uk/clif
https://fedora-commons.org/confluence/display/hydra
*****************************************************************************************
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*****************************************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf
_______________________________________________
Fedora-commons-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-developers
