Multiple descriptions MUST be combined

[xdxxxdx]

I’m currently reviewing the SPEC to find relevant test cases. In the Overview chapter. The specification includes the following statement:

tree:viewDescription points to an entity with a reusable piece of information relevant to the full search tree. Multiple descriptions MUST be combined.

However, the current SPEC does not provide an example illustrating how to use tree:viewDescription.

• It may be necessary to clarify how the descriptions should be combined. For example, how should conflicts be resolved when combining them?
• can a single tree:View have a one-to-many relationship with tree:viewDescription and tree:Node?

Example:

ex:Collection1 a tree:Collection;
    rdfs:label "A Collection of subjects"@en;
    tree:member ex:Subject1, ex:Subject2;
    tree:view ex:View1.

ex:View1 a tree:Node;
    tree:viewDescription ex:ViewDescription1, ex:ViewDescription2.

ex:ViewDescription1 a tree:Node;
    rdfs:label "A tree view description of Collection1"@en;
    ldes:retentionPolicy ex:P1.

ex:ViewDescription2 a tree:Node;
    rdfs:label "A tree view description of Collection1"@en;
    ldes:retentionPolicy ex:P2.

How should the information from ex:ViewDescription1 and ex:ViewDescription2 be combined, especially if there is a conflict (e.g., conflicting ldes:retentionPolicy values)?

Maybe we need to explicitly specify the merging strategy or conflict resolution behavior in such cases.

[pietercolpaert]

The idea is indeed that this means both policies ex:P1 and ex:P2 are being used on ex:View1. If there would be conflicts, it would mean the server is faulty.