LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  January 2005

MODS January 2005

Subject:

merits of a type library

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:11:15 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (68 lines)

We would like to step back from the current MODS/MADS development and
discuss again the merits of a type library.

We have discussed the possible development of a type library on this list
over the past few years, and it seems that most people contributing to the
discussion think it's a good idea, but not very many people have
participated in the discussion.  Now, we've been working for a month or so
on this new approach, and we would like opinions and comments from as many
of you as possible, before committing significantly more time on this.

Specifically, the approach/plan is:

1. Define a type library that includes definitions common to MODS and MADS
(and possibly future schemas in the MODS/MADS family).
2. The first official release of MADS would co-incide with the first
release of the type library and mads would include references to types in
the type library where applicable, in lieu of in-schema definitions.
3.  Following the release of the first version of MADS, we would begin
development of MODS version 4, which would also refer to the type library
where appropriate.

A prototype of this plan is available --
1.  the draft type library, mstl (metadata schema type library)  is at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/mstl.xsd
2. a draft of MADS that references the type library is at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/mads-preliminary-draft-jan-13.xsd
3. A draft of what the current MODS might look like refencing the current
draft type library is at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/mods4.xsd

There are a couple of complexities that a type library presents, and this
is why we're asking for your consideration of this plan before proceeding.

(1) within your mods or mads instances, references to elements defined in
the type library will have to include a namespace prefix.  (Only elements
though, not datatypes, and most of the type library will be datatypes, not
elements).

For example:

<mads xmlns:m="mstl">
<authority>
<name> <namePart type="date">july 1</namePart></name>
<authority>
<affiliation>
<m.organization>xxx</m:organization>
<m.email> www@z </m.email>
</affiliation>

In this mads record, <organization> and <email> require a prefix, as they
are declared within affiliationType in the type library, however
<affiliation> doesn't require a prefix because it is declared in mads
(with a reference to affiliationType).

(2) There is a concern that fragmentation of schemas will make them more
difficult to read and comprehend.  That is, if you're trying to read the
mods schema and there are frequent references to another schema, you'll
have to have both schemas in front of you. (If we do adopt the type
library approach we will employ documentation techniques that minimize
this problem.)

On the other hand the benefits of common libraries are well-understood and
don't need to be re-iterated.

Comments will be appreciated. We thought it would be good to outline some
of the implementation considerations.

Rebecca

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=MODS&P=17855
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-27
57899
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:C747T4WDTW3K4AMSPPEPRZSPIQL2NBCD
<urn:uuid:019378cc-4ea3-48e1-8792-1e8915063658>
2022-06-25T15:29:39Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:M3OEZVTKSGF4M6XQ6YVSUXGWTDZSWEE3
<urn:uuid:f9fb9f8e-1d9b-4499-b50f-6ef1a11f8877>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=MODS&P=17855
response
<urn:uuid:8a628e7c-0a87-4c94-87d3-603ea28a9889>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-27
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June/July 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-252
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/