On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 16:35, jeroen bekaert wrote:
> Changing mandatory/optional occurence constraints based on METS related
> issues is clearly an 'interoperability with other schemas' problem. Its
> sole purpose is the trouble-free use of PREMIS in conjunction with METS
I'm a little lost as to why this is a METS only issue. The redundancy
issue does not crop up in any other context?
If only a few elements are mandatory, then maybe its moot.
> It should be clear that mandatory/optional contraints on PREMIS
> elements/attributes should be dictated by the abstract PREMIS data
> dictionary only.
That does make sense to me, but it was suggested at the top of this
thread that the definition of "mandatory" in the context of the data
dictionary is not the same as the definition of "mandatory" in XML
> After all, isn't this why people define an abstract
> model? See also the email sent by Ryan Chute on July 11 on this very list.
Is there an archive of this list? I was not on it in July 11.
P.S. I still think an inclusion mechanism is worth considering.