Hi Ray,

The MODS schema also allows a top-level MODS element to be a valid instance of the schema.  I'm just curious what the thinking was behind this design decision? 

Thanks,
Emerson


Emerson Morgan
Metadata Analyst, ARTstor
151 East 61st Street
New York, NY  10021
(212) 500-2406
[log in to unmask]
www.artstor.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] why is mods allowed as root?


From: "Bruce D'Arcus" <[log in to unmask]>
> It's just that both of these are valid:
>
> <modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
>    <mods>
>       ...
>    </mods>
> </modsCollection>
>
> <mods xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
>       ...
> </mods>

Ok, I see.

Mods defines both the "mods record" and "mods collection"  where the latter
is a collection of records.

(So <mods> or <modsCollection> can be the root, for a mods record or mods
collection respectively.)

A solution (to the apparent complexity and confusion that this causes) is to
define a separate schema for modsCollection.

We did discuss this long ago and decided it wasn't necessary, but I wouldn't
object to revisiting this.  You could propose it for version 4.

Another suggestion has been to dissalow <mods> as a root, so that
<modsCollection> would wrap even a single mods record. I would  oppose this
approach but would not oppose a  separate schema.

--Ray