Date:         Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:40:26 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: XLink
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

From: "Andy Switala" <[log in to unmask]>
> There's also the issue of why use METS/XLink when
>  * The schema appears to be fully compliant with W3C/XLink (modulo the
> namespace).
>  * Third party tools, stylesheets, etc. are far more likely to support
> W3C/XLink.
> Since MODS 3.0 draft is already backwards-incompatible with MODS 2.0 [1],
> why not take the opportunity to use a standard linking syntax rather than
an
> identical in-house syntax?  Alternately, if partial
backwards-compatibility
> were desired, the xlink:simpleLink attribute group in the 3.0 schema could
> be extended to allow attributes from either namespace, with the METS
> namespace being deprecated.

We're looking into this, and currently getting clarification from Mets on
why they took the approach they did.  Thanks.
--Ray