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  http://www.w3.org/wiki/HashVsSlash 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

> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/primer.html#namespaces 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

 

Ray