> 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> or <creator> <type>...</type> <name>Geoff Mottram</name> <description>...</description> </creator> or maybe <creator> <type>...</type> <name> <given>Geoff</given> <family>Mottram</family> </name> <description>...</description> </creator> 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 standard. Probably not politically correct, for LC's point of view... Andy.