Merrilee has it right (at least, it matches with my understanding).
In the case of only recording the print side, you can consider the image to
stand in for the entire object; in that case, there's no need for child
subobjects. If you're going to image both sides, however, it's better to
assign these images to two subobjects of the photo object, one for the recto
and one for the verso. That way, when people examine the navigation hierarchy
for the object, they can see that the two images are at the same level of
the tree and are basically paired. Making the verso a child of the
photo object where the photo object is matched with the recto image implies
that
the verso image is a subsidiary part of the recto image. I think it's
much clearer to have the tree balanced when you're going to image both
sides, with both recto and verso subobjects for the photo object.
This is not that huge a deal; the sky will not collapse if you make the verso
of a photo an only child under the photo object. But it will look a little
odd to have a navigation hierarchy for the object in which you have a root
node for the whole photo, a branch for the verso, and no branch for the recto.
Jerome McDonough -- jmcdonou@library.Berkeley.EDU | (......)
Library Systems Office, 386 Doe, U.C. Berkeley | \ * * /
Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 (510) 642-5168 | \ <> /
"Well, it looks easy enough...." | \ -- / SGNORMPF!!!
-- From the Famous Last Words file | ||||