On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:12:37PM +0100, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> > > Is that very practical?
> >
> > I suppose it depends which applications are likely to use
> > the schemas. The registry would of course know what to do,
> > and other applications could presumably also know if programmed
> > accordingly.
> >
> > The alternative, as I understand it, is to replicate redundant
> > information in multiple schemas, which seems practical as a
> > quick fix but impractical to maintain in the longer term.
> >
> > Then there's Pete's compromise idea: put lots of redundant
> > information in the secondary schemas so that they are
> > self-contained and useful "as is". Then ignore everything
> > but the language-dependent bits when the data is merged into
> > the DCMI registry.
> >
> > Which do you think is the most practical?
>
> Think removing duplicates is just switching to an equivalent.
How would that work? Wouldn't it presuppose an application
that knows which equivalent to prefer? There's no danger an
application would throw out "official" information in favor
of the old and out-of-date?
Are you saying that putting redundant information around
in various schemas is safe and practical -- the best of
the options above?
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: [log in to unmask]
|