Date:         Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:24:17 -0400
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:      Re: [METS] extension schemas
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On Jun 6, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

> I don't recall, but in any case the result was that both schemas ended 
> up with the w3 namespace, not so that the namespaces would be the same 
> for both schemas, but to comply with the standard.  (And now, MODS  
> -- I can't speak for METS -- is wondering why we bother complying with 
> that standard......) 

Well, the reason to comply with the standard is sort of self-evident: 
to comply with the standard.

I'd say if you don't like the standard there's no reason why you can't 
invent your own linking attributes.  I just don't think they should in 
any way reference (by standard prefix or namespace) xlink in that case.

Bruce