 |
 |
At 11:41 AM 3/29/02 -0500, Geoff Mottram wrote: >I would like to propose an alternative declaration for the name, subject >and title elements that tackles the various issues raised with the >current implementation. It requires the general design philosophy that >if an element may contain sub-elements, it should not also contain >regular content. I actually agree with this rather strongly as a general design principle. Though we deal with many schemes (including EAD) that do allow mixed PCDATA and subelements, implementation is much easier if you do not allow it. >---------- >NAME FIELD >---------- >For the name field, I propose renaming it to "creator" with the >following structure: I also like the redesign of name. I also like not calling it "name", so we don't have the ambiguity with names as subjects. However, I would prefer to call it "contributor". A lot of names in 1xx and 7xx fields will not be creators of the intellectual content. >---------- >UNIVERSAL FIELD >---------- >A final possibility would be to create a single field definition for >creators, subjects and titles as follows: > >creatorSubjectTitleType > ID (attribute) > role (attribute) > authority (attribute) > link (attribute) > typeAuthority (attribute) > typeLink (attribute) > > affiliation (element) > displayForm (element) > part (element) > type (attribute) > description (element) > type (element) I don't like this, as we're getting very far from MARC semantics, the representation of which I thought was the purpose of MODS. p