Re: [Xmlastro-discussion] Multiple Objects

[Don W. <don...@ma...>]

>
>
>>Perhaps I'm missing the point but whats wrong with simply having:
>>
>><object> and <objects>
>>
>>The former being singular and the latter, well, plural.
>>    
>>
>
>My only concern about <objects> is that it looks a lot like <object>. It
>might make the documents harder to read than otherwise. That's a minor
>issue, though.
>
>I think Don should go ahead and include <objects> or <object-group> or
>something along those lines into the schema. Regardless of what we call
>it, it seems clear that we need a way to occassionally support multiple
>objects in a single observation.
>
Semantically <objects> and <object-group> seem to be the same, so I'll 
use <object-group>.

Don