In the current BDC model, we only have an items table that contains the scene information and its assets.
In the context of the DGI catalog, a scene can be in several collections at the same time, due to the levels of processing (e.g. L2, L4, DN, SR, etc.), in other words, the information of a same scene will be repeated in 2 or more records within items.
Given that we deal with thousands of scenes, if there is a need to edit the information of a scene, all repetitions will have to be changed, which may not be the ideal for a relational database.
For example: in the current DGI database, there is one table with scenes (Scene), one with collections (Dataset) and another with assets (Asset). The relationship would be 1:N (Scene:Asset) and N:1 (Asset:Dataset), that is, Assets is an N:N relationship between scene information (Scene) and collections (Dataset).
Maybe create this N:N relationship between items andcollections could be a good practice or create another way to avoid data redundancy.
In the current BDC model, we only have an
itemstable that contains the scene information and its assets.In the context of the DGI catalog, a scene can be in several collections at the same time, due to the levels of processing (e.g. L2, L4, DN, SR, etc.), in other words, the information of a same scene will be repeated in 2 or more records within
items.Given that we deal with thousands of scenes, if there is a need to edit the information of a scene, all repetitions will have to be changed, which may not be the ideal for a relational database.
For example: in the current DGI database, there is one table with scenes (Scene), one with collections (Dataset) and another with assets (Asset). The relationship would be 1:N (Scene:Asset) and N:1 (Asset:Dataset), that is, Assets is an N:N relationship between scene information (Scene) and collections (Dataset).
Maybe create this N:N relationship between
itemsandcollectionscould be a good practice or create another way to avoid data redundancy.Thank you in advance.