Date:         Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:51:16 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Dublin Core and MODS (was Re: [MODS] Reusing MODS elements)
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

On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:05  AM, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:

> In any case, we would need to do something because the DC-Library
> Application Profile uses some MODS elements. At some point when that
> is completed someone will write a schema for it and will need to use a
> few MODS elements (location and edition).

I'm a little confused about all the different efforts out there related
to bibliographic metadata.  We have MODS, of course.  We also have the
DC-Library profile, and the citation working group; both relating to
DC.  The latter seems to have some relation to the OpenURL stuff, which
has written it's own -- very limited I might add -- schema.

Is there any sort of coordination here?  Shouldn't there be?

With v3 of MODS, I think for once an XML schema has gotten the question
of parts description right.  I really think this solution ought to be
promoted more widely.  As it is, I see in these other approaches once
again retreading a dead end road.  Having elements like <journalTitle>
just strikes me as a bad idea, as is having separate genre-specific
schemas, because it means only a small number of genres will be
adequately coded.

Or is it the case that DC must be flat, and so there can be no way to
have a title within an <IsPartOf> element?

Bruce