This is extremely helpful - thank you so much.
On 8/3/11 11:29 AM, "Richard Karnesky" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On 01/-10/-28163 11:59 AM, Riley, Jenn wrote:
>> In the meantime, and speaking only for myself here, it would help me to
>> hear more about your use case. I do of course see the inherent
>> attractiveness and potential of making this element into more structured
>> data. (And I hope a more formal data model for MODS 4.0 would go a long
>> way towards this.) However, the Editorial Committee has found it helpful
>> to work from actual real-world use cases, as you can imagine it's pretty
>> difficult to design around all theoretical possibilities. Can you tell
>> more about what you're trying to do? You mention the Zotero MODS
>> - are you pushing data from a format that does have units as a data
>> element into MODS? Is there a specific target for this MODS data in
>> or is it a desire to have as granular an export as possible for
>> (unspecified) downstream applications?
>The Zotero database has a field for the number of pages in a whole
>resource & it would be nice to retain this structure. refbase and other
>reference management software have formal mechanisms for specifying
>total pages as well. For what it is worth, I'm not aware of any end
>user software that formalizes the other information that is stored in
>the extent (e.g. number of figures).
>While eXist (who had initially asked for the changes to Zotero) does
>have a specific product they're importing this MODS into, they also have
>some amount of control over the importer for that product, so can bring
>it into line with whatever formalism is agreed on. I'm personally
>interested in clean import into any downstream application (including
>both refbase and zotero) in the future.