>>> [log in to unmask] 02/03/05 4:29 PM >>>
> But is this a reasonable comparison? I may be wrong, but DC doesn't
> any way control the type values; does it?
> If that's right, then here
> you're just introducing another element to hold content that could
> as easily be coded directly in mods:genre. And you're moving the
> problem (which is how to validate the content of the node based on
> authority) to that schema.
That is precisely the bug/feature dichotomy. If the foreign genre terms
etc. are in separate schemata, the maintainers of MODS do not have to
keep their schema in sync with controlled vocabularies outside their
> Right, so again you want to make the instance (and everything that
> along with that; from editing to query to processing) more complex
> make the other stuff "easier"?
Namespaces make obvious the complexity inherent in supporting multiple
vocabularies, I think.
> The problem isn't really that complicated in the abstract (e.g.
> notwithstanding any implementation details) is it?
Yes. From the user guidelines, here are the possible values for the
authority attribute on <genre>:
Even using RNG, you must admit it would not be practical to support all
those vocabularies within the MODS schema.