From: Saašha Metsärantala

> I did not find a description of the design choices which have been made for

> the MODS RDF Ontology and XSLT. For example, I wonder about the choices

> made about hash vs. slash namespaces. 


  The hash form was preferable for

·         convenience,as described in   <> information is easier to publish using an RDF editor, and 

·         efficiency.

The disadvantage does not seem to apply since the file is not very large. 


> One other thing I did not find is a few sentences about the reasons why

> XSLT 2.0 was chosen (and not the more widely implemented XSLT 1.0). Maybe

> it is because the code is easier to write


Yes, 2.0 seems to be preferred here because it is more flexible and functional.



> - In the table describing the namespaces and their prefixes at

>  <> several of

> the prefixes used in the ontology are missing. Furthermore, several

> prefixes used in the primer are not in this table either: class identifier

> madsrdfs madsrds rds xs xsd (some of them may be duplicates or typos)


I have fixed these. 



> - The phrase "information about the about the descriptivemetadata"

> probably needs to be reformulated


> - "Doman" is probably a typo for "Domain"


> - "corresond" is probably a typo for "correspond"


> - In the MODS 3.4 schema, the shelfLocator element is defined as xsString,

> which is xsd:string with language attributes. In xsd:string space

> characters are significant (not collapsed) and therefore, the space before

> "DAG" in


> <shelfLocator> DAG no. 1410</shelfLocator>


> is significant but not rendered in


> "DAG no. 1410"


All fixed.


> These are also called "top level" (with quotation

> marks) in the MODS 3.4 schema. The quotation marks signal that the term

> "top level" is not related to MODS instances as XML. In the primer, these

> quotation marks are gone, which creates confusion, because these "top

> level" elements are under the mods:mods element(s), which in turn may

> reside under a mods:modsCollection within an instance, and thus are not

> "top level" from the instance's point of view.


I've put quotes around top-level.



> Furthermore, the two elements mods:extension and mods:typeOfResource which

> are considered "top level" (with quotation marks) in the MODS 3.4 schema

> are not in this table for reasons that I consider would need to be

> clarified within this table.


I have added an explanation why these were not covered. 



Thanks much for the review and comments, these have been very helpful