I will definitely file a bug report with Altova.

Many thanks -- I appreciate your help!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Tingle" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: [METS] Basic question about XLink in METS and MODS

>I don't know if it would be worth filing a bug report with Altova or
> contacting Altova support.  Xerces seems to have no problem with this. By
> our reading of w3c's XML Schema what we are doing is not an error.
> Xerces from Apache, arguably the most authoritative implementation of
> W3C Schmea, appears to agree with us.  XMLSpy does not seem to be
> compatible with the rest of the XML world.  If enough people complain
> maybe Altova will reevaluate their interpretation of W3C schema.
> Of course, we could have METS point to MODS' xlink.xsd.  At the moment,
> the actual contents of xlink.xsd are the same.  This idea did not
> have consensus last time it was discussed on the list.
> -- Brian
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:34:29PM -0800, Marsha Maguire wrote:
>> Thank you so much, Brian. Whew, that's a relief -- of sorts. We've 
>> already
>> paid for XMLSpy and can't retool at this early stage in the project, but 
>> I
>> was able FINALLY to validate my METS document (which also uses MODS and
>> MIX) by saving the MODS schema to my PC and pointing there in my 
>> namespace
>> and schemaLocation references. In my local copy of the MODS schema, I
>> deleted all references to xlink: as an attribute because XMLSpy said it 
>> was
>> repetitive to have xlink referenced in two different schemas (from the 
>> same
>> namespace, as you point out). Hmmm, probably all I needed to do was put 
>> one
>> of the schemas on my local machine and not make changes in the schema. 
>> I'll
>> try that next, but for those of us who are trying to learn and implement
>> METS, and who have committed to XMLSpy already, is any long-term solution
>> on the horizon?
>> Many thanks!
>> Marsha
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Brian Tingle" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: [METS] Basic question about XLink in METS and MODS
>> >We belive that XMLSpy is in error.  Its getting confused because
>> >two different schemaLocaions are being used for the same namespace.
>> >
>> >The XMLSpy developers, as I understand it, insist their intrepreation
>> >of the spec is correct and that the instances are in error.
>> >
>> >Last time I tried, Xerces validates documents like this.  Xerces
>> >is the defalut validating parser for the oXygen XML editor, which
>> >is much nicer than the last version of XMLSpy I used.
>> >
>> >-- Brian
>> >
>> >On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 04:54:02PM -0800, Marsha Maguire wrote:
>> >>Hi, all,
>> >>
>> >>This is a *very* basic question (a few of us are working on a METS 
>> >>pilot
>> >>project and are sort of learning as we go), but has anyone experienced
>> >>XMLSpy validation problems when MODS is used to provide descriptive
>> >>metadata in a METS document? At the top of my METS document, I refer to
>> >>the
>> >>namespaces for METS and MODS, along with some other namespaces, and I 
>> >>add
>> >>the schema location info for METS and MODS:
>> >>
>> >><mets:mets xmlns:mets=""
>> >>xmlns:mods=""
>> >>xmlns:xlink=""
>> >>xmlns=""
>> >>xmlns:Jhove=""
>> >>xmlns:xsi=""
>> >>xsi:schemaLocation="
>> >>
>> >>">
>> >>
>> >>Have I done anything illegal here? I'm hand encoding a test record, and
>> >>XMLSpy OKs it as well formed, but it doesn't validate. Instead, XMLSpy
>> >>opens mods-3-0.xsd and, with the cursor on line 5, which is the
>> >>xsd:import
>> >>statement of the W3 namespace for XLink and the schema location 
>> >>statement
>> >>for the xlink.xsd schema at the LC MODS site, gives the error message:
>> >>
>> >>This file is not valid: Unable to load schema with target namespace
>> >>'' from
>> >>''.
>> >>
>> >>Does the schema location need to refer to the same URI the one stated 
>> >>in
>> >>the namespace for XLink? I'm sure there's no problem with the MODS
>> >>schema,
>> >>so I must be missing something or stating something incorrectly (and 
>> >>I'll
>> >>be mortified when someone tells me how basic the error I made is).
>> >>
>> >>Many thanks and have a good weekend.
>> >>
>> >>Marsha Maguire
>> >>Manuscripts and Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
>> >>University of Washington Libraries
>> >>P.O. Box 352900
>> >>Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>> >>(206) 543-8407 fax: (206) 685-8782
>> >>[log in to unmask]
>> >