You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is more of a question than a feedback on this term: what is the use case for this term? It seems like there is must be cases, where the order of multiple entityRelationships would be relevant, but we couldn't come up with any that couldn't also be covered with dwc:relationshipEstablishedDate .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The idea was that if you have multiple relationships of the same type, you could indicate an order. Haven't seen specific issues with this yet, but you could think of a situation where there are multiple serialisations (as we have in the FDO Handle) and you want to indicate a preference/order. The use case is a bit thin, I have to admit. We could also remove it for now and read it when there is an actual need for this term. Maybe that is better, I will remove this term for now until we have a use case. Adding terms shouldn't be an issue in the future
Term Name
ods:entityRelationshipOrder
Digital Object Name
DigitalSpecimen: EntityRelationship
Feedback
This is more of a question than a feedback on this term: what is the use case for this term? It seems like there is must be cases, where the order of multiple entityRelationships would be relevant, but we couldn't come up with any that couldn't also be covered with dwc:relationshipEstablishedDate .
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: