> From: Priscilla Caplan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 09:47 AM
> Yes, that's exactly what I was agreeing with.
> From: Geoff Mottram [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 10:03 AM>
> Sorry if there was any confusion about my proposal. Priscilla
> is correct in
> her interpretation. Elements that may contain sub-elements
> may not contain
> PCDATA (ever) and vice versa. The "creator" field would be
> defined partially
> like this:
>   <!ELEMENT creator (type,name,description)>
> Whereas the "name" field would be defined thus:
>   <!ELEMENT name #PCDATA>

Actually, I think we all agree that mixing #PCDATA _between_
elements, ala HTML, would _not_ be a good content model.  I
can for see communities that do not want to specify "type" nor
"description".  They just want something plain and simple like
Dublin Core.  So I can see a use for:

  <!ELEMENT creator (#PCDATA|(type,name,description)>
  <!ELEMENT name (#PCDATA)>

possible with sub-elements for name as well.  This combination
would allow someone to say:

  <creator>Geoff Mottram</creator>


    <name>Geoff Mottram</name>

or maybe


So you can specify more detail when your community requires that
detail, otherwise you don't have to.

Has anyone noticed that a number of elements mimic Dublin Core?
It seems to me given the above proposal and discussion by Geoff
that LC could just create a Dublin Core profile adding a few
MODS specific elements to the Dublin Core 15 and then create the
formal sub-element structure that Geoff describes.  That would
provide the detail LC is looking for while reusing an existing

Probably not politically correct, for LC's point of view...