Here's another reminder: if you post a message with a subject like this it's
not going to be part of the "record" of discussion (not part of the easily
discoverable record anyway).
in the ref column, for Scan, click on the reference and you'll get the initial
message, and there's a button to scroll through the thread, but the subjects
have to be either "Scan" or "Re: Scan".
Joe Zeeman wrote:
> Let me try to describe the situation I have in mind fairly clearly. I have
> a relational database. It has a table of "access points". This table is
> the "index" to the bibliographic records. It is also the "index" to the
> authority records. The rows in the table tell you what the search terms
> are in my database. They also tell you (through a bit of XML magic) when a
> search term is a reference to another search term. So, when someone does a
> scan, I return data from this table. And only from this table. I think it
> is helpful to the user to include the reference information that I already
> have in the table. It is no effort for me to do so; in fact it is
> significant effort for me to exclude the reference information.
> I don't want scan to preclude this behaviour. And the single "alternative
> term" element doesn't have rich-enough semantics to let me express the
> variety of references I already have.
> I can also, if I want, use this table to collapse and expand heading
> hierarchies because each row has a hierarchical level indicator and a
> pointer to it's parent if it's not a root. So I can easily use this table
> to do simple thesaural navigation. I don't have a separate thesaurus
> database. I don't have a strong requirement to do this right now, but I
> can see how it will be useful in the future.
> If I wanted to refer to a separate database that could be used to provide
> thesaural access or a finding aid to the data in this database, then I
> agree, this would be outside the scope of scan.