----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:05 PM
> Hi John,
> This version resolves all of my major issues vis-a-vis
> dataset/collection semantics.
> I only have two significant comments:
> 1) I see that DataType/MetadataType/ServiceType definitions are
> unchanged. We've already been over some of the issues here so I won't
> restate them - I assume dealing with this is being postponed to a future
yeah, its pretty much postponed. We have an "Other" type, and I think you
can override the ENTITY declarations. Also I am starting to look at XML
Schema to see how this can be better done. I think we will have to revisit
this. It would be good to accumulate some use cases.
> 2) I don't see the justification for the "property" tag. It seems like
> this is a duplication of basic XML functionality.
> I.e. if you want to add THREDDS-parseable information about dataset
> elements later on, you can just add XML attributes to the dataset tag,
> as you have done for the "dataType" and "authority" fields. So I'm not
> sure what you gain by adding your own generic tag whose "meaning" is
> that it is really just an attribute.
The problem is that you cant add an XML attribute without changing the DTD.
So a property is a way to add non-standard attributes. Im not sure it will
> My remaining issues with the DTD are all just details that I can live
> with. So that's it..
thanks for sticking with it. I am working through a Java object model to see
what problems arise.