Need for rethinking Coverage and other fields with single record with multiple parents

[techsvcslib]

With the latest release (1.3), we now have the ability to create a single or master record for the same resource that might be available through multiple places, i.e. multiple parents. As an example, we might have the journal Nature available through an aggregator as well as through a direct subscription.

Although we can designate multiple parents, this new functionality needs to be carefully considered when it comes to other areas of the resource record. One example is the Coverage field. It is common to have holdings for a resource from one parent differ from holdings for a resource from a different parent. In this new release, we cannot make that differentiation at all.

Somehow, the Coverage field needs to be repeatable and also linked to a particular vendor/platform ID.

This may also be true of many other existing fields in the resource record including things in the Acquisitions tab and other parts of the resource record.

[benheet]

I think this is a significant issue. We should discuss the single vs multiple record approach and its impact on other fields and features in coral. I don't think additional development on the resource module should happen until we've made a decision on how we want to proceed with this.