Date:         Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:30:58 -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:
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

From: "Robin Wendler" <[log in to unmask]>
> Did the MODS schema authors consider making more of
> the MODS subelements global elements, and "ref-ing" them
> within the larger elements such as originInfo?

All the top-level elements will be global in version 3, so by "more" I
assume you mean the subelements.

We considered it and we didn't give it as much consideration as the idea
probably deserves. It seemed simple to externalize the top-level elements
because they're mutually independent (not entirely, but almost) while
subelements either (a) exist in the context of their parents so they would
be referenced "out-of-context" so to speak, or (b) are so simple that
externalizing them wouldn't serve any purpose and would complicate both
schemas (MODS and the referencing schema).

>....  such as publisher and frequency.

Publisher is defined as:
       <xsd:element name="publisher">
       <xsd:annotation>
       <xsd:documentation>260 $b</xsd:documentation>
      </xsd:annotation>

So what would a schema gain by referencing the MODS publisher element? The
marc  mapping semantics?  Is that worth it?  Frequency is similar.

I do think it would be worthwhile to identify the elements that are
appropriate for external reference, and making them global wouldn't be a big
effort.


> The usual apologies for asking dumb questions apply.

(Hardly a dumb question, Robin.)


--Ray

[text/html]