I think we should not go down this route. When I want a brief record or
a full record I do not want something that is narrower or broader than
something for which I do not know how broad or narrow it is.
If I am the only one for which this was an issue I would say let's
leave it as it was.
Theo
>>> [log in to unmask] 16-12-2004 0:59 >>>
> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:28:37 +0000
> From: Dr Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > What I want is some way in Explain to say that two schemas are
> > related and the nature of that relationship. The relations are:
> > broader, narrower and variant.
>
> Ahh. Well, that's somewhat harder, and I should pay more attention
> to the discussion I guess =)
:-)
Sounds I mention RDF? No probably best not ...
> We'd need something like:
>
> <schema name="dc" identifier="..."> ... </schema>
> <schema name="dc-b" narrowerThan="dc" identifer="..."> </schema>
If we want to go down this kind of route at all (relationships stated
explicity rather than implied by nesting) I would prefer something
more like:
<schema name="dc" identifier="..."> ... </schema>
<schema name="dc-b" identifer="...">
<relation type="narrower" name="dc"/>
...
</schema>
Not that I am overly fond of this approach.
> Or preferably to make schema profiles nest.
>
> <schema name="dc">
> <title>
> <profiles>
> <schema name="dc-b">...</schema>
> </profiles>
> </schema>
This is cute, but it's going to make life awkward if the nesting
changes (e.g. by the introduction of "dc-fairlybrief").
_/|_
_______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "rm() { /bin/rm -f $*; echo 'Were you sure?'; }" -- Tee-shirt
at a Unix conference.
--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/
