Date:         Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:27:30 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Jerome McDonough <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Recordsets
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

At 08:39 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>I too endorse the value in a mechanism to create a set of records and
>still have a file that can be validated and processed as a single XML
>file.  The TEI2 (Text Encoding Initiative) DTD has a similar capability
>and it proves very useful in dealing with collections of small documents
>(such as issues of a magazine).  And as I think about doing (in an XML
>Schema environment) the tasks I have done with sets of records (MARC, and
>using a variety of XML DTDs) when integrating collections from other
>institutions into American Memory, I am confident that I would soon notice
>its lack.

I'm joining this discussion a bit late, but I'd actually like to argue
*against*
a recordset notion within MODS.  This strikes me as a holdover from
DTD-thinking.  If you need to keep multiple MODS records in a single
file and validate the whole thing, just write your own, local schema for
that purpose that incorporates the MODS schema for the individual
record definition.

One of the big advantages of XML Schema is the ability to treat
bits of XML in a much more modular, mix-and-match fashion than
was possible using DTDs.  I'd say MODS should stick to defining
a single record format.  If you need to have a file containing
multiple MODS records, it's easy enough to enable that using MODS
as part of a more encompassing schema.



Jerome McDonough
Digital Library Development Team Leader
Elmer Bobst Library, New York University
70 Washington Square South, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10012
[log in to unmask]
(212) 998-2425