Goodness, I must be getting bounce-happy. Sorry about that. Good thing I
didn't expose any secret passwords or anything...
Hans :)
* Hans Fugal [Fri, 12 Jul 2002 at 10:56 -0600]
> Hi Beau, I will write more later - I have to get out the door in a
> minute. Was this intended to be off-list? Ma
ks to online catalogs - assuming that they aren't being revised
> in ways that break the links.
>
> Does that complicate the issue sufficiently?
>
> Beau
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Hans Fugal
>
t; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Hans Fugal
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [gdmxml] more thoughts on entering a source
>
>
> I spent a while wrestling this out with my brother Jacob today. The
ssuming that they aren't being revised
in ways that break the links.
Does that complicate the issue sufficiently?
Beau
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hans Fugal
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sub
I spent a while wrestling this out with my brother Jacob today. There
are situations where one would need to know more than just
repository-id and source-id. For instance, if a particular repository
had more than one copy of source and you wanted to indicate which one
you had searched, repository-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Hans Fugal
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:39 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [gdmxml] more thoughts on entering a source
> >
> >
> > So I guess the question becomes whe
]
> Subject: Re: [gdmxml] more thoughts on entering a source
>
>
> So I guess the question becomes whether it is appropriate to do it this
> way in gdmxml. Any opinions?
>
>
>
> * Stan Mitchell [Tue, 9 Jul 2002 at 23:12 -0700]
>
> > Yes, it does seem
So I guess the question becomes whether it is appropriate to do it this
way in gdmxml. Any opinions?
* Stan Mitchell [Tue, 9 Jul 2002 at 23:12 -0700]
> Yes, it does seem that your suggestion reduces redundancy
> without sacrificing search capability.
>
> Hans Fugal wrote:
>
> >But then you
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 Ce
Thanks for the explanations, Stan! Things are beginning to clear up.
See below...
* Stan Mitchell [Tue, 9 Jul 2002 at 15:03 -0700]
> Yes, you're right, it is a three-way association with 0-1 instances of
> activity.
> From a database perspective, repository-source is an associative table -
> no
Yes, you're right, it is a three-way association with 0-1 instances of
activity.
From a database perspective, repository-source is an associative table -
no primary key only foreign keys. So it would be useful for performing
queries on various combinations of the foreign keys.
I think the three
hmm, that's an interesting perpsective. This made me look closer at
repository-source, and I am a little muddy now...
It looks like repository-source ties 0 or 1 repositories to 0 or 1
sources to 0 or 1 activities (searches). It seems to me that this opens
the door for data redundancy - there co
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
Thanks for the heads up, John. I checked the spec; the sequence number
is "The number that keeps the PLACE-PARTs in order, either ascending or
descending (or in no order)." Place-part has a place-part-type-id which
specifies whether this part is a city, county, etc. So as I understand
it the sequ
At 10:09 PM 7/8/2002 -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
>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
>implied.
I am a retired progr
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
