>Sometimes DC is too simple. Sometimes something else is
The dcxyz (or dcx) schema is an extreme case (but is apparently in
demand). I think the intent is that a client may silently ignore any
elements from a namespace that it doesn't recognize. Granted, this doesn't much
aid interoperability. And another intent is that it be used with prior
agreement of which namespaces are to be used. Again, not great for
interoperability. So the broad utility of this schema is limited.
I am certainly happy to create and support additional more specific
schemas as requested. But they need to be requested.
'dc+prism'. That schema would be created simply by replacing
<xs:any namespace="##any" .....
However, suppose someone then wants to combine dc, prism, and mods
elements. Create a dc+mods+prism? And so on. This
is the sort of question we've wrestled with for the past 15 years (beginning
with Z39.50). I think the answer is, yes, we'll create a dc+mods+prism
schema, only if a real business case is made. What I resist is the
suggestion to take the Z39.50 approach to dynamic schemas (i.e. element