- Apr 25, 2008Hitherto, all relationships in the G2 family of IPTC standards have been between two nodes and their direction has been non-problematic:In the case of broader and narrower the direction is clear.The relationship is true in both directions for:- sameAs- related at the Core Conformance Level (as it means SeeAlso)In the case of related at the Power Conformance Level there hasn't been a problem hitherto, as we can name the relationship (using @rel) in such a way that it is true that the lexically enclosing node has relationship X to the enclosed node (ie to the one indicated by the @qcode on related). For example, if rel="rel:hasCurrency", then one would expect the @qcode on related to represent a Currency and the qcode on the enclosing element to represent a Geopolitical Unit:<concept>
<name role="nameRole:main" xml:lang="en">Northern Mariana Islands</name>
<definition role="defRole:main" xml:lang="en">Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands</definition>
<related rel="cptRel:dependencyOf" qcode="G:6J"/>
<related rel="cptRel:hasCurrency" qcode="C:6"/>
At today's IPTC News Architecture WP meeting we agreed to allow a bag as a child element of related, in the same way that we allow a bag as a child element of subject. Together with the existing @validFrom and @validTo attributes, this will allow us to express, for example, that on date D1, Yogoslavia split into entities X, Y and Z. I'm concerned about the reverse case, eg that on date D2, Tanganyika and Zanzibar merged to form Tanzania. Now one could rely completely on @rel for this, eg rel="rel:Merged" and rel="rel:Demerged", and write the GRDDL transform so that it knows that Merged runs one way and Demerged runs the other way. Or should we add a @dir attribute to related, for this sort of case?· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.