On Jan 26, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

> I don't think the purpose is that definitions are global, because we
> don't
> need a type library for that.
> In mods, we have lots of global elements. For example, a mods instance
> could
> consist solely of......
>             <abstract/>

Sorry, I wasn't quite meaning that.  I was just meaning that there
should be a bunch of patterns that can be easily assembled elsewhere.
So when I have this:

M-Title = element title { M-TitleMain, M-TitleSub }

M-TitleMain = element title-main { text }

M-TitleSub = element title-sub { text }

I'm just meaning the definitions are all global in the library, so that
one can easily use them in different contexts.  I can then, for
example, do this in some other schema:

M-MetaData = element info { M-TitleMain }

> So I think the purpose of a type library is to reuse definitions, by
> means
> of import or include.


> However, I think that the impasse here is that I've been trying to do
> this
> via "import" and perhaps it should instead be via "include".    I
> think it's
> the import that's causing the namespace complexity and I've been
> playing
> around a bit this morning and am more optimistic that we can do this
> via
> "include".