On Jan 25, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > In fact with separate namespaces it's even easier than that -- in a > mods > instance, or in a mads instance, you use just <name>, no prefix -- the > default namespace. ( In an instance of a third schema referencing one > or > the other than it would use the appropriate prefix.) So at least for > this > example separate namespaces seems to be a simplifying rather than > complicating factor. (Yes it's a bit more complicated because we're > talking > about factoring out the common part to the type library and that part > would > be namespaced.) I didn't quite get this, so am not sure I'm on the right track below. > Well, from the example above, flexibility to define names without fear > of > collision. For whom: those defining names and those creating complex > instances that reference them. I'm looking for concrete examples. Why should I want to create instances with mixed MODS and MADS namespaces? This is critical issue. For anyone who's ever worked with instance data across multiple namespaces, every time you add a namespace -- in the context of XSLT processing, or query, or whatever -- the level of complexity goes up significantly. I spent ages and ages utterly frustrated trying to work out multiple namespace issues in some XSLT stylesheets I was working on awhile ago. In that case, I had the following namespaces: document (docbook) bib metadata (mods) styling config language (my own schema) [I've since added a fourth which is internal to the processing; and then of course there's the output namespace] So, in this fairly complex context, I had three namespaces, and it was a PITA. It was made somewhat easier, however, because each document had its own namespace. Now, if I understand you right, you're telling me it's feasible I may need to deal with one or two more namespaces just to be able to handle MODS data? If I have that right, why I should I want to make my life more difficult (having to constantly be aware of which element is associated with which namespace) to get what practical benefit? If one doesn't get the namespaces precisely right in XML processing, it's as if the data isn't even there. Bruce