Yes, the church should be done as <subject><name>. In the library world,
we make metadata records for names to give an authorized form (following a
set of rules). So in this case we would give the church an authorized form
of name, probably "Vang kirke" and it would be used as <subject><name>. In
library catalogs, you would see names of churches considered as corporate
bodies (although type is not required). As for the role "depicted", that
is fine. We had a request a while back to define a term/code for that
exact relationship in our MARC list for relators (which we often use in
MODS for the <role> element. So if you look at the list at:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html you will find that as a
role term with the following definition:
Use for the person or group depicted or portrayed in a work, particularly
in a work of art.
If Vang is also a place name, you could include another subject for
<topic>churches</topic><geographic>Vang</geographic>. I am assuming that
you are not using some authoritative form of name for these (if so you
would indicate the source with authority="").
We would expect these to be different subjects, so a <subject> wrapper
around each string:
(Note that this uses MODS 3.0; in MODS 2.1, it would be <role><text> as
you indicated below).
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Eskil H. Solvang wrote:
> As part of an OAI data provider project, I'm converting photo gallery
> metadata from a proprietary metadata format into MODS. So far everything
> looks promising, except for a small detail related to the use of the
> subject element. One of the metadata records describes a photograph of a
> church named "Vang kirke" ("the church of Vang"), and this should somehow
> be reflected in the <subject> element. My current proposal is:
> But I'm wondering whether it's also appropriate to regard "Vang kirke" as
> a <name>, or if this is misuse of the <name> element? In my opinion it is
> a name, but at the same time I'm doubting since it doesn't fit into any of
> the name type categories (personal, corporate, conference).
> The reason why I want to describe the church as a <name>, is that I want
> to keep the connection between the name and the fact that it is depicted
> on the photography (this connection is described in the original
> metadata). My new proposal is:
> <namePart>Vang kirke</namePart>
> Is it possible to do it this way, or is this way of using the name/role
> elements wrong? I realize that the role - depicted - is a very passive
> one, if hardly a role at all. If my proposal is incorrect (which I have a
> feeling of), how could/should I describe this connection.
> All hints and tips are appreciated. Thanks in advance.
> Sincerely yours,
> Eskil H. Solvang,
> Norwegian University of Science and Technology (http://www.ntnu.no)