linking protocol to dataset

[David Blankman]

Tim,

As I look at the model, it seems to me that the model accomdates what 
you want to do. The element names are perhaps a little 
confusing/misleading. My reading is similar to Peter's. As I read it, a 
series of "methodStep(s)" does not imply that there is a dependency 
relationship among the series of methodSteps. Perhaps it would be 
clearer to rename methodStep to method, then methods would a repetable 
choice (or sequence depending on the resolution of  bug 624) of  a 
method, sampling or qualityControl. Since a method (methodStep) can have 
0 or more subStep(s), the intrepretation of:
 <methods>
    <method></method>
    <method>
        <subStep></subStep>
        <subStep></subStep>
        <subStep></subStep>
    </method>
    <method></method>
</methods>

would be clear: three independent methods, one of which has a series of 
three substeps.

I am not entirely clear whether subStep is still useful/needed given 
that <description>/textType allows for nesting, but I can see that it 
allows for additional descriptive richness.
                           

Tim Bergsma wrote:

>Peter, others,
>
>I'm wrestling with the relationship between a protocol and a dataset.
>
>In my local data management system, a dataset can 'have' an associated
>protocol.  But in eml, a dataset cannot have a protocol:  it can only
>have a methods that has a methodStep that has a protocol.  
>
>In fact, in my local system, a dataset can have any number of named
>methods, and any number of named protocols.  But eml clearly expects
>that a dataset has only one methods.  The only way I can see to
>stipulate multiple, independent methods is to create multiple
>methodSteps, and poke the descriptions into TextType.  Same for
>protocols.  Clearly this was not how methodStep was intended.
>
>MethodStep repeats, but also the choice of
>methodStep/sampling/qualityControl repeats.  Correct me if I'm wrong: 
>choosing methodStep twice will look exactly like choosing it once but
>having two methodSteps.  Consequentially, there's no mechanism to signal
>that one sequence of methodSteps is independent of a second sequence of
>methodSteps.
>
>Unless review of RC2 flags this as a certifiable flaw, it's not going to
>change now.  I have a very real problem that some of my datasets don't
>have records of actual activity (methods), they only have protocols.  I
>could spoof the methods/methodStep tags and poke each protocol into a
>textType.  For datasets with multiple, independent methods, I guess I'll
>have to poke each into a sequential methodSteps, even if they are not
>sequentially related.  Please comment.
>
>Tim.
>
>
>
>Tim Bergsma
>LTER Information Manager
>W.K. Kellogg Biological Station
>Michigan State University
>Hickory Corners, MI   49060
>616/671-2337
>tbergsma at kbs.msu.edu
>http://lter.kbs.msu.edu
>_______________________________________________
>eml-dev mailing list
>eml-dev at ecoinformatics.org
>http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/eml-dev
>  
>

-- 
David E. Blankman
Database Integration Developer
Long Term Ecological Research Network Office
University of New Mexico
801 University, SE #104
Albuquerque, NM 87106
(505) 272-7346 / (505) 272-7080 FAX