| | 149 | [[twagoo|Twan]]: Thanks Oliver, I like your improved representation and constraint proposals. Especially if we want to broaden the use of 'resource relations', I think we must build in this kind of flexibility (including N:M relations, what would be the downside?). On that note, using this to represent IsPartOf relations we probably want to\\ |
| | 150 | (1) Rename !ResourceRelationList to !RelationList and move it out of Resources\\ |
| | 151 | (2) Provide ways of referring to the document itself AND other documents that are '''not resources''' in the document (i.e. a way to express "''this'' is part of collection Y"). For example: |
| | 152 | {{{#!xml |
| | 153 | <RelationList> |
| | 154 | <ResourceRelation> |
| | 155 | <!-- omitted details --> |
| | 156 | </ResourceRelation> |
| | 157 | <MetadataRelation> |
| | 158 | <RelationType dcr:datcat="http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1234">partOf</RelationType> |
| | 159 | <MetadataDocument role="part" dcr:datcat="http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2345"/> <!-- No ref could denote 'this document' --> |
| | 160 | <MetadataDocument role="container" dcr:datcat="http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-3456" ref="../mycollection.cmdi"/> |
| | 161 | </MetadataRelation> |
| | 162 | </RelationList> |
| | 163 | }}} |
| | 164 | which adds a lot of power to the (resource) relation list but of course also complexity and another level of indirection. Is that roughly what you had in mind, Florian and Oliver? If so, the question is: is is it worth the additional hassle or should the 'part of' realation for metadata documents keep a special status. |
