...
- The dumb and brittle approach is to hard code the search to check all the fields where it is used.
- Another approach is to model all uses of vocabulary like RDF as a relationship. This makes broad searching easy, but it will likely slow down structured search, and somewhat complicates the model (compared to a direct reference from the entity schema).
- Yet another approach is to describe where the vocabulary can be used, allowing for a reflection-like mechanism that search can use to construct field-based search through an entity. This makes the main information modeling simpler, but makes the search model pretty complexmore complex. OTOH, if our users demand a traditional structured search model in which they (can) specify each field to search within, then we'll have to do this anyway.
- Where the reference is already within an association (e.g., in a semantic index, or in a Determination service that formally describes a specimen as being of a given taxon), then it would be awkward to impose another level of indirection by associating the vocabulary item with the association, and in turn to the specimen.
For now, we will assume that fields can be direct references to a vocabulary value, and that we will solve the search problem as part of the general approach to search and reflection.
Can we model rank as an attribute of a Vocabulary Item?
...