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?
Metadata Analyst, ARTstor
151 East 61st Street
New York, NY 10021
[log in to unmask]
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 xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
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
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.