On Nov 23, 2004, at 2:59 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> So if we develop a utility schema as a type library, and refence it
> from MODS and MADS via "include", then both MODS and MADS have to have
> the same target namespace. Would this be a good thing, for MODS and
> MADS to have the same namespace?
I don't know all the details, but given the relationship between MODS
and MADS (that the latter in essence offer supplementary data for the
content covered in MODS records), it seems to make some sense that
they'd be in the same namespace. It does seem a little silly to have
<mods:title> and <mads:title> when they refer to the same thing. It
also would seem to add unnecessary processing complexity.
Bruce
|