> >
> > 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.
rs
>
> 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]
>
>
|