Context Navigation

MdType

v4	v5
15	15	[[schiel\|Florian]]: Why restrict this to a a two-level granularity 'collection' and 'part_of_collection'? Most of us agree that relations between MD instances are necessary and should be made possible (see for instances the discussions in the VLO task force group). The very first relations that all MD providers using hierarchical MD structures will apply are 'is_part_of' and 'has_part'. Once these relations are encoded, you don't need any rigid two-level granularity as proposed here: just the fact that a relation 'is_part_of' is present indicates that this MD cannot be the root of a resource. In fact both relations are already used in CMDI 1.1: namely the header element 'isPartOf' (= relation 'is_part_of') and the ResourceProxyLink of type 'Metadata' (= relation 'has_part').
16	16	To my knowledge even in IMDI unrestricted hierarchies have been used. In the current CMDI at least the centers BAS and IDS uses relations like above. Relations will make MdType obsolete.
	17
	18	[[mwindhouwer\|Menzo]] Using the relations we could distinguish three levels: roots, inner nodes and leafs. It might be problematic to automatically mark all roots and inner nodes as collections. The solutions below would allow each center to determine which are the appropriate ones.
17	19
18	20	== Proposed solutions ==