Date:         Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:03:32 -0400
Reply-To:     Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Enrico Silterra <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Including well-formed XML as <FContent>
Comments: To: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask] .edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;



I am worried that if we allow fragments of xml in
mdWrap, etc, that over time the meaning of those XML fragments
will deteriorate.  The existence of a schema does not guarantee
that there are well defined semantics, but at least requiring
the existence of a schema gives a strong nudge
to users of METS that documenting the semantics of the xml being used
in these contexts is A Good Thing.  Without the requirement,
everyone will take the easy way out. Schemas will not be defined by anyone,and
chaos will be upon the land.
Just my 2 yoctocents,
Rick Silterra


[text/html]