Date:         Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:49:39 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: merits of a type library
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

From: "Bruce D'Arcus" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> 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,

I don't think so. This approach, single namespace, would mean that a single
schema would define both root elements, <mods> and <mads> (and whatever
other root elements) and then could *include* (rather than *import*) xml for
both mods and mads.  I believe this would avoid the need for prefixes.

And (as noted) it would also make processing easier.  I do think however,
from a "big picture" perspective, it would significantly inhibit
flexibility.

--Ray