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)
repository-source element?


"Everybody is talking about the weather but nobody does anything about it."
        -- Mark Twain

gdmxml mailing list

Reply via email to