referencing complex types is not done consistently
In all modules we import other schemas and use components. Sometimes we define
elements that use a ComplexType, other times we import and use an element that
uses the complex type. We need to go through the modules systematically and
make sure that all inter-namespace references are done in the same way. This
most often involves the ways we use ResponsibleParty, the various coverage
types, and citations, but there are several others too. Check them all and fix
#1 Updated by Matt Jones over 18 years ago
Proposed fix: make a complex type that contains all of the relevant fields in
the schema that is to be imported, then create an element in the current schem
that uses that type. For example, eml-party contains a "ResponsibleParty" type,
which is used to type and element named "creator" that is part of eml-resource.
Similarly, there should be a "Coverage" complex type in eml-coverage, and we
will reference it in an element called "coverage" in eml-resource.
Please be sure that all modules import things using this consistent syntax.
Need to consider this in relation to the use of identifiers and
#2 Updated by Peter McCartney over 18 years ago
There are problems with some software packages (castor for example) that arise
from elements and complex types having the same name (even if distinguished by
capitalization. So we should further distinguish through consisten suffixes.
Currently we seem to be use Base as a suffix for major complex types that
define an entire module and are extended such as resource or entity, and Type
for both simpletypes and minor complex types that are used without extension.
In a few instances, this has let to some odd names like GeometryTypeType, but
they never show up in the instance file anyway.
We should formalize this so we are consistent.