Context Navigation

ResourceRelation

v9	v10
230	230	How strict should we be in applying datcats to relationships, - is it sufficient to select datcats conveying the general idea of the relation, or must the datcat be explicitly defined as a relation (as in the other example using DC-2318)
231	231
	232	[[oschonef\|Oliver]]: A little blurry comment to Oddruns last suggestion: I wonder, what if we remove any "relation semantics" from !ResourceProxyList and ditch the isPartOf stuff. CMDI could define !ResourceProxyList just as an "inventory" of entities we like to talk about and all relations, also more elementary relations like "hasPart" and "isPartOf", are explicitly expressed within the !ResourceRelationList. Or are we going to become to abstract this why?
	233
	234	Another observation: [putting on my center agnostic hat] at least one centers defines relations between Resources by using !ResourceProxies and the ''@href'' attribute within the component section of the CMDI instance, e.g. by putting an ''@href'' on ''isPart'' or ''source'' elements (OLAC DCMI-terms profile). Relation suddenly appear within the Components section. What do you think about this approach (especially considering the metadata exploitation point-of-view)?