I had in mind the last point: to use a single namespace for an entity
schema separately. I would like to recommend a specified namespace for
single entity schemas. This was meant for interoperability reasons.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress schrieb:
> From: "Olaf Brandt" <[log in to unmask]>
>>I wonder if we should recommend a generic namespace for the different
>>versions of entities. It could be useful if some institutions use only
>>some parts of the PREMIS schema separately (e.g. only the Event entity
>>shema) in common.
>>A namespace could look like this: http://www.loc.gov/premis/v1/Object-v1-1
> If I understand the suggestion, it's to use separate namespaces for the
> different schemas (container + 4 entity schemas thus five namespaces).
> The container schema *includes* the entity schemas:
> (e.g. <xs:include schemaLocation="Object-v1-0.xsd" /> etc).
> Inclusion requires a common namespace - the including and included schemas
> must have the same target namespace. So all five namespaces need to be the
> (Now, if the design had been based on importation, rather than inclusion,
> this restriction would not hold. But importation brings more complexities
> that I'm sure Premis would rather not deal with.)
> The single-namespace does not present any restriction against using any of
> the entity schemas separately.