Date:         Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:41:22 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: merits of a type library
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:

> (1) within your mods or mads instances, references to elements defined
> in
> the type library will have to include a namespace prefix.  (Only
> elements
> though, not datatypes, and most of the type library will be datatypes,
> not
> elements).

[snip]

> (2) There is a concern that fragmentation of schemas will make them
> more
> difficult to read and comprehend.  That is, if you're trying to read
> the
> mods schema and there are frequent references to another schema, you'll
> have to have both schemas in front of you. (If we do adopt the type
> library approach we will employ documentation techniques that minimize
> this problem.)

I may have said something different before, but when you put it this
way, I guess I'd say that the two of these together make it not at all
attractive.

In this approach, you basically make the instance and processing
associated with them more complicated in order to make development
easier, all while using a schema language that inherently makes
development more difficult.

I think MODS/MADS instances should be in a single namespace, unless
someone is embedding extra content in the extension element.  That does
introduce the mild awkwardness of mods:title/mads:title, but I think
that's a better alternative than:

<affiliation>
   <m.organization>xxx</m:organization>
   <m.email> www@z </m.email>
</affiliation>

Bruce