At 04:36 PM 01/08/1999 -0800, Jerome McDonough wrote:
>At 03:58 PM 1/8/1999 -0800, Merrilee Proffitt wrote:
>>I think, actually, that the latter is correct; the _object_ is the photo,
>>with _subobjects_ recto and verso. If you had made a decision to only
>>record the print side (leaving out all mention of the verso), however, I
>>think you would do well to just record the information at the object
>>level, and not go down another level. Which seems a bit paradoxical, and
>>makes me unsure of my answer. Which is why I'm bouncing it out there for
>>all of you.
>>
>
>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 | ||||
>
>