 |
 |
Stephen Buckley: > > Can someone suggest a solution/ compromise to the following? > > Is there a recommended way of preventing the "HasPart" qualifier of > something like the top level of a discussion group (which could consist > of an unlimited number of parts) becoming unwieldy? > In a database, a link between two records doesn't need to be coded in both but only in the records at the n-side of a 1:n relationship. Thus, "IsPartOf" is the only thing you need, given appropriate indexing. We have the same situation in library catalog data: you don't want (and you can't) include a list of "HasPart" links into the record for a series (of potentially 1000s of publications) but what you do is put a link of "IsPartOf" into every record of a publication belonging to the series. The indexing has to make sure that from the record for the series (the main record) you can then find the various and scattered records belonging to it. This way, you also never need to touch the main record again whenever a new part of the series arrives. Just make sure you never change the key that serves for the linking. The same applies to authority records, like for names and subject terms. In terms of database management, the HasPart qualifier is redundant if you use "IsPartOf" consistently. For exchange purposes, it may have its uses. regards B.E. Bernhard Eversberg Universitaetsbibliothek, Postf. 3329, D-38023 Braunschweig, Germany Tel. +49 531 391-5026 , -5011 , FAX -5836 e-mail [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%