Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:26:46 -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: Unifying MODS and MADS namespace  (Re: [MODS] 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; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On Jan 26, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

> It's time for some separate sub-threads, I think.

Yes.  Thanks!

> From: "Bruce D'Arcus" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Why should MODS and MADS be in separate namespaces to begin with?
>
> Again let me reiterate this example I gave yesterday:  mods and mads
> <name>
> are defined differently, so in the  single-namespace approach you'd
> need
> different names for 'name' e.g.  <modsName> and <madsName>.

But again, this is confusing namespace and definition; isn't it?
Regardless of how you do the namespaces, the definitions will need
different names if they are different.  Except ...

... in RNG, you can have a base definition in your library, and then
redefine it on import.   You can see a MODS-related example here, where
I include mods in docbook, but redefine the mods extension element to
allow docbook content (for editing support):

http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2004/08/21/
why-i-like-relax-ng

Can you not do that in XSD?

Bruce