> So my conclusion from all this weighty debate: you wouldn't want to
> divorce the logical and physical structures when you have both,
> but that
> there could be cases where you have multiple logical structures (or
> physical/logical structures) that have relationships between them
> and so
> METS should consider adding support for linking between
> structMaps. If
> others agree with that then we can either add it now or put it on the
> docket for a future editorial board meeting... I leave it Jerry to
I agree that such a linking facility might be potentially useful.
I also think that trying to determine what encoders mean when
they link between different structmaps (and writing
software to support that) raises a lot of nontrivial issues.
So, on to the docket with this issue. We are not making
any more substantive changes to the schema at this point,
except for the addition of behaviorSec we discussed in
Pittsburgh. Any enhancements discussed now go on the docket
for Version 1.1.