Hi,
>>> [log in to unmask] 2004-08-27 11:40:10 >>>
> 1. Make all of the descriptors allow empty elements, so you can use
an
> xlink attribute (URI) in lieu of a value.
Hurrah. And I look forward to this propagating to MODS so I can
rid my data of such ridiculous structures as
<relatedItem xlink:href="file.xml#id"><note/></relatedItem>
<titleInfo type="uniform"
xlink:href="file.xml#id"><nonSort/></titleInfo>
> We have the following questions and observations pertaining to
suggestions
> that we think need further discussion:
> 3. Based on the list discussion pertaining to allowing extensibility
of
> enumerated lists while preserving interoperability, we propose to
adopt
> the suggestion to replace all enumerated lists such that the value is
a
> uri. [...]
> 4. There were questions about intent of MADS examples and whether
they
> conform to the structure of MADS. We'll try to make the examples
more
> accurate. One question concerned the lack of an authority attribute
in one
> of the examples and the possible need to make this attribute
required,
> since otherwise the purpose of the record is questionable if it
isn't
> authoritative according to some authority.
The string "local" in proposal #4 would be interpreted as a
relative URI if proposal #3 is implemented. Results would be
unpredictable if there were actually a resource named "local" with the
same base URI as the madsCollection being accessed. Better would be to
include in the list of standard authorities a permanently unassigned URI
for local use.
> 6. There was discussion of the intent of MADS (browsable strings or
term
> searching). [...]
It seems counterintuitive that an authorized heading would be
needed in addition to the contents of the <authority> element. Are
there any examples where it would be impractical to generate the
displayed heading automatically from the markup?
> 10. There was a suggestion to add an attribute "authorities" to a
> collection as a shortcut to avoid having to define authorities for
> individual records. However (if we understand the suggestion
correctly)
> this would make an individual record dependent on a collection, so
that it
> couldn't be used as a standalone record. That is, if you extract the
record
> from the collection it wouldn't have the authority.
Yes, you understand correctly. The suggestion was based on the
existing xml:base and xml:lang attributes and the xmlns pseudoattribute.
If a record is extracted by machine the appropriate modifications could
be made. Think of XInclude processors inserting xml:base attributes as
needed. But the point is taken; simple cut-and-paste wouldn't be
possible any longer. You'd think someone who generates so much XML by
hand would have thought of that :smacks forehead:
--Andy
