Clarify in Technical Implementation Guidelines / Metadata representation in CERIF XML

[alubie]

Technical Implementation Guidelines / Metadata representation in CERIF XML:

"While syntactically, the CERIF profile XML allows to construct structures of any depth, the contents of each metadata record should be kept limited to the nearest objects that are representable by a top-level element. These neighboring objects should be expressed using as much detail as is practical to identify them. This includes links to any higher level structures of which the object is part, e.g. to an institution of which an organisation unit is part.
However, the neighboring object XML shall never contain more information or different information from what is expressed in the main record for that object i.e., where the object is retrieved as a top-level object. This is a stronger form of a requirement of functional dependency."

The exact meaning is not easy to understand. Also the first sentence might miss a word.

[ACz-UniBi]

Dear @alubie , thank you very much for this issue.

This referees to the section at https://openaire-guidelines-for-cris-managers.readthedocs.io/en/v1.1.1/implementation.html#metadata-representation-in-cerif-xml

I would imagine that a knowledgeable audience can only understand the sentence.
What do you suggest from your point of view regarding the first sentence?

[alubie]

The first comma, i.e. the comma after "While syntactically" ("While syntactically, the CERIF profile XML allows ...") should be deleted?

Perhaps a little example might help understanding the paragraph. E.g. Publication records syntactically might include, within their References section, full Publication records with all details. Including, within their References section, full Publication records with all details. Including ... However, for the first article originally described by the main record, details of its references as e.g. their authors affiliations or again their citations seem hardly relevant.
Or any other example, probably other cases like that are also conceivable.

Also it might be good to add some concretion regarding details which might be missed in the main record ("However, the neighboring object XML shall never contain more information ...") or contradictions ("... or different information ...").