Date:         Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:59:26 -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] org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 04:00 PM 4/3/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >> 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
>
>This is a "big" myth propagated by the XML Schema community.  DTD's
>can very easily be as modular and used in a mix-and-match fashion,
>just like XML Schemas.  XML Schemas provide only "minor" advantages
>over DTD's and for those "minor" advantages, if you rethink your
>content model you don't really need them.

Depends on how many different schemas you're trying to combine, and
how much control you have over them.  If you're trying to combine document
definitions from a variety of possibly not-very-cooperative sources (and I am),
then I'd much rather be dealing in XML schema than having to develop
a comprehensive DTD.

> > 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.
>
>Either you can define one DTD/Schema that incorporates the concept
>of record sets or you can define one DTD/Schema for a single records
>and one for a set of records.  Regardless, it would be better to
>have it defined one way, via a standard, rather than an infinite
>number of ways that each metadata community might implement it.  An
>interoperable way is always preferable.
>
>So I respectfully disagree.

I'm not sure you do, actually. :)  At least the disagreement part.  I don't
really object to MODS defining a schema that enables sets of records
to be contained in a single file; I just want to see it written in a sensible
manner, which is to say, separate schema files, with the one for the record
set
part being extremely sensible, and referencing a separate single-record-only
MODS schema for the record type.  I agree in general about
standards/interoperability,
but since the most basic functionality required for recordsets is going to
consist of a single tag (<recordset></recordset>), I'm not that worried about
getting a batch of records from someone else that happens to use
<set_of_records> instead.  So, I think we can agree to agree on defining
a schema for a single record and one for sets.


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