Date:Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:02:30 -0500
Reply-To:Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:Geoff Mottram <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Alternate proposal
Comments:To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Actually, Geoff was not proposing (although I don't want to put words in
> his mouth) mixing tags and PCDATA. What I believe he was proposing was
> either or. According to a DTD schema both are considered mixed content
> models. Here is his <creator> example:
>
> <creator>
> <type>personal</type>
> <name>Abrams, Michael</name>
> <description>(American artist, 20th c.)</description>
> </creator>
>
> In DTD term he was proposing:
>
> <!ELEMENT creator (#PCDATA|(type,name,description)>
>
> so you can have either any text you want or the elements type, name
> and description. In this model you cannot mix text between the
> elements type, name and description. He was not proposing:
>
> <!ELEMENT creator (#PCDATA|type|name|description)>
>
> The latter would be like HTML where you can do:
>
> <div>
> This is some text...
> <a href="#">This is a link</a>
> This is more text...
> </div>
Sorry if there was any confusion about my proposal. Priscilla is correct in
her interpretation. Elements that may contain sub-elements may not contain
PCDATA (ever) and vice versa. The "creator" field would be defined partially
like this:
<!ELEMENT creator (type,name,description)>
Whereas the "name" field would be defined thus:
<!ELEMENT name #PCDATA>
It would be much easier for someone searching and parsing a MODS document to
not have to check both the "creator" element and the "name" sub-element for
PCDATA. I want the data to be as structured as possible and at the same
time, reduce the number of decisions a cataloger must make when creating a
record. It's better for both the producer and consumer of this data.
Geoff