> From: Priscilla Caplan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 09:47 AM
> Yes, that's exactly what I was agreeing with.
> From: Geoff Mottram [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:03 AM>
> Sorry if there was any confusion about my proposal. Priscilla
> is correct in
> her interpretation. Elements that may contain sub-elements
> may not contain
> PCDATA (ever) and vice versa. The "creator" field would be
> defined partially
> like this:
> <!ELEMENT creator (type,name,description)>
> Whereas the "name" field would be defined thus:
> <!ELEMENT name #PCDATA>
Actually, I think we all agree that mixing #PCDATA _between_
elements, ala HTML, would _not_ be a good content model. I
can for see communities that do not want to specify "type" nor
"description". They just want something plain and simple like
Dublin Core. So I can see a use for:
<!ELEMENT creator (#PCDATA|(type,name,description)>
<!ELEMENT name (#PCDATA)>
possible with sub-elements for name as well. This combination
would allow someone to say:
So you can specify more detail when your community requires that
detail, otherwise you don't have to.
Has anyone noticed that a number of elements mimic Dublin Core?
It seems to me given the above proposal and discussion by Geoff
that LC could just create a Dublin Core profile adding a few
MODS specific elements to the Dublin Core 15 and then create the
formal sub-element structure that Geoff describes. That would
provide the detail LC is looking for while reusing an existing
Probably not politically correct, for LC's point of view...