EML

This should be considered along with other changes to the top level eml root
element. I think it is a good idea and has been requested by a number fo
different EML users from LTER and elsewhere.

I dont object as i think this would be a backward-compatible change. However,
i think it's a patch to what is really desired - to be able to manage and
exchange metadata in more atomic units than whole eml documents. I can easily
forsee similar requests to treat spatial reference, party, attributes, etc as
"root" elements (they arent really root, are they?). I think we need to begin
some longer term thinking about eliminating the <eml> tag itself which would
let content for each xsd file in eml potentially be a root element.

If we continued to support the eml tag but just agreed it was ok to make xml
documents that validate only to eml-project or eml-party, I think even that is
technically still backwards compatible.

This bug is related to the discussions of what the root element "eml" describes, and whether resources can be collections in addition to individual documents. A solution may involve changes to other modules. See bugs #2076, #1128, #3503

One other note:
If project.xsd were to move to a top-level module, then it would make use of the resourceGroup. The change would affect all existing EML documents because the structure for including party in project.xsd is with the <personnel> element, an extension of the PartyType (with the added child, <role>):
eml/dataset/project/personnel

In a resourceGroup, <personnel> is not available. The only element that has a <role> child is <associatedParty> so project/personnel trees embedded in (e.g.) datasets, will need to be transformed to
eml/dataset/project/associatedParty

Original Bugzilla ID was 2079