Facility and Instrument

[Ray Plante]

Tony, Bob,

Last week at our telecon, one of things I was asked to tweak the metadata
schema structure to separate Facility and Instrument into a separate
Resource subclass.  Since then, Tony suggested that we might handle these
as a relationship type.  That latter idea is under discussion (see my last
email).

Putting this latter idea aside for the moment, I want to bring up the 
subclass idea.  I thought about this after the telecon, and I found that 
it was unclear to me which resource classes would inherit from this new 
subclass and which classes (either existing or future) would not.  I 
concluded that it was unclear as to what this proposed subclass 
represents.

I presume that the motivation for this idea comes from the concern that 
Facility and Instrument do not apply consistently to all possible 
resources.  Is this still a concern?  If yes, what classes of resources 
would want to prevent the application of these metadata?  

Personally, I would prefer that we go either with Tony's relationship 
suggestion or to keep them as optional elements of the generic Resource.  

thanks,
Ray