Hi!
@rca, as Manuel mentioned, Object tch1, Photography tch100, Inventory tch200, and Documents tch300 are identical in terms of components, so you're working correctly. The primary focus is on Object tch1. If you don't want to create separate collections, it's perfectly correct to omit the other ones. The reason for this separation is that, as Manuel explained, some museums have their Photograph collections distinct from their Objects collections. This is a common practice, but for Dédalo, they are essentially the same ontology. The only difference is the section_tipo (tch1, tch100, tch200, tch300), which defines the separation of the collections. Another example of this is Inventory tch200, which is used to store bags rather than objects. Therefore, for the archaeological process, it is more evident to separate the bags (directly from the excavation of the archaeological site) from the "official objects collection".
Okay, the connection between Numismatic Object numisdata4 will be the same for all: tch1, tch100, tch200, and tch300. Therefore, they will be accessible on all of them.
For diffusion, we'll create connections to the coins numisdata1036 table, which will be multiple. Therefore, the resolution will be the same as toponyms (since they operate in a similar manner, with multiple virtual sections for all toponyms). We'll use the current default tch diffusion tch209. The only difference will be whether your data is stored within the table objects (from tch1) or documents (from tch300).
So, the plan is clear, and both perspectives are valid. If you don't want to have separate collections, you can use objects tch1. However, if you have a large volume of data and work with different cataloging numbers for collection types, you can use multiple collections. The difference do not alter the plan.
I hope is clear.
