At 11:41 AM 3/29/02 -0500, Geoff Mottram wrote:
>I would like to propose an alternative declaration for the name, subject
>and title elements that tackles the various issues raised with the
>current implementation. It requires the general design philosophy that
>if an element may contain sub-elements, it should not also contain
I actually agree with this rather strongly as a general design principle.
Though we deal with many schemes (including EAD) that do allow mixed PCDATA
and subelements, implementation is much easier if you do not allow it.
>For the name field, I propose renaming it to "creator" with the
I also like the redesign of name. I also like not calling it "name", so we
don't have the ambiguity with names as subjects. However, I would prefer
to call it "contributor". A lot of names in 1xx and 7xx fields will not be
creators of the intellectual content.
>A final possibility would be to create a single field definition for
>creators, subjects and titles as follows:
> ID (attribute)
> role (attribute)
> authority (attribute)
> link (attribute)
> typeAuthority (attribute)
> typeLink (attribute)
> affiliation (element)
> displayForm (element)
> part (element)
> type (attribute)
> description (element)
> type (element)
I don't like this, as we're getting very far from MARC semantics, the
representation of which I thought was the purpose of MODS.