I got to thinking... I really should have done that in more than one
source. Something like
<source id="fladstrand-marriages">
<citation-part citation-part-type="title">
Marriages in Fladstrand Parish
</citation-part>
</source>
<source id="p199" higher-source="fladstrand-marriages">
<citation-part citation-part-type="page">199</citation-part>
</source>
<source id="film0049002" higher-source="fladstrand-marriages">
<citation-part citation-part-type="film">
0049002
</citation-part>
</source>
<citation-part-type id="title">Title</citation-part-type>
<citation-part-type id="film">Film Number</citation-part-type>
<citation-part-type id="page">Page Number</citation-part-type>
* Hans Fugal [Fri, 5 Jul 2002 at 17:50 -0600]
<quote>
> I'm documenting a source in gdmxml now, and as I expected a lot of
> questions have been raised in my mind.
>
> First is the issue of citation-parts. The citation-part is used to
> store citation parts such as title, author, page, etc. As it stands now
> I would document "Marriages in Fladstrand Parish (Film #0049002), p.
> 199)" [1] as
>
> <source id="1" />
> <citation-part source="1" citation-part-type="1">
> Marriages in Fladstrand Parish
> </citation-part>
> <citation-part source="1" citation-part-type="2">0049002</citation-part>
> <citation-part source="1" citation-part-type="3">199</citation-part>
> <citation-part-type id="1">Title</citation-part-type>
> <citation-part-type id="2">Film #</citation-part-type>
> <citation-part-type id="3">p.</citation-part-type>
>
> But it seems natural to put the citation-part elements inside a source
> element, like this
>
> <source id="1">
> <citation-part citation-part-type="1">
> Marriages in Fladstrand Parish
> </citation-part>
> <citation-part citation-part-type="2">0049002</citation-part>
> <citation-part citation-part-type="3">199</citation-part>
> </source>
> <citation-part-type id="1">Title</citation-part-type>
> <citation-part-type id="2">Film #</citation-part-type>
> <citation-part-type id="3">p.</citation-part-type>
>
> That's easy enough to specify, and it makes sense because there's one
> and only one source per citation-part. Which brings us to
> source-groups. These two relationships hold: One source-group has zero
> to many sources, and one source belongs to zero to many source-groups.
> In a database we definitely want a source-group-source table to get rid
> of this many-to-many relationship. But again we can collapse things a
> bit:
>
> <source id="1">
> <source-group-source source-group="1"/>
> <source-group-source source-group="2"/>
> </source>
> <source-group id="1">group 1</source-group>
> <source-group id="2">group 2</source-group>
>
> Does this approach seem valid? (This would apply in many other places
> throughout the spec.)
>
> You'll probably also noticed I have decided to leave off the "-id" on
> the end of IDREF attributes. It just feels redundant to have it there.
>
> Also, in my hand-cooked examples I used the ID "1" (for example) more
> than once, but for different attributes. Is that valid, or do IDs need
> to be unique even when identifying different element types?
>
> Hans :)
>
> 1. http://fugal.net/andreas/first_fugl/fugl1.htm footnote 2.
> --
> "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
</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
