Date:         Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:33:49 -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; format=flowed

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

> 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>.

Oh, wait; I think I misread you.  You're telling me the element names
must be different if you have different named definitions.  Right?

Are you *sure* that's right?  If it is, that's yet another way you're
letting the limitations of XSD drive your design decisions.

In RNG, this is perfectly valid (as it should be):

MODS-Name = element name { A, B, C }
MADS-Name = element name { X, Y, Z }

... and the namespace issue is entirely separate.

Bruce