LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  January 2004

MODS January 2004

Subject:

Re: MODS questions

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:07:44 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (262 lines)

Roy, this is *totally* sensible in terms of sorting, and a solution I
would much prefer. There's a recent change to MARC, which I believe the
LC folks were trying to accommodate with nonSort, but I think your
solution works for it as well. The MARC change states that in the future
(i.e. when we all get around to implementing it, which no one has yet,
as far as I know) there will be two distinct characters that you place
around non-sort elements in a field, i.e. (and I'm using the braces but
the characters are new values and do not have a display form...), and
non-sort will no longer be limited to the beginning of the field. 

  {The }way we were.
  Hamlet, {the }Prince of Denmark

This could easily be turned into your sort field based on those
characters. It couldn't as easily be turned back into the MARC field,
but since MODS is not as detailed as MARC the round-trip aspect has
already been lost, hasn't it? 

Also note that in the early implementations of the online catalog at U
of California we used a table to determine the non-sort beginnings of
titles (coordinated with the language code in the MARC record) and it
was quite accurate. So when people say: I don't want to have to key the
title twice (sort and non-sort) I always answer than an algorithm can do
it for them and it get right in most cases, and they'd just have to make
modifications for the really odd titles or when the language isn't
known. So much of this now can be done "on the fly", including inverting
names, that we shouldn't be afraid of repetition. And it is much easier,
as you say, to go out and grab a sort title than to rummage through
attributes, and I bet it will be much less prone to error.

As for the punctuation, you may have heard a cheer go up among the
Unimarc folks when they read your post. This is a long-standing conflict
between how Unimarc and MARC handle fields. Unimarc does more detailed
coding and inserts the punctuation at the time of display; MARC includes
the punctuation in the field. The former is much more sensible; the
latter is a huge "legacy" problem. (Here we could bring out the old saw
of "the future is longer than the past" but when that came up at the
recent MARC standards committee a voice in the back of the room chimed
in: "Not for some of us." ;-)

kc

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 16:14, Roy Tennant wrote:
> Call me crazy, and probably one or the other of us will regret me 
> wading in here, but for the life of me I can't figure out why something 
> like this wouldn't work, and it strikes me as being less prone to 
> problems (but I could be overlooking some which I'm sure someone will 
> point out).
> 
> <titleInfo>
>         <title>The Best of Times</title>
>         <titleSort>Best of Times</title>
>         <titleSub>An Essay on Entertaining</titleSub>
>         <titleAbbrev>Best of Times</titleAbbrev>
>         <titleTrans lang="ger">German title here</titleTrans>
> </titleInfo>
> 
> <titleInfo> could be required to have <title>, with everything else 
> being optional. The benefit of this from a processing viewpoint is that 
> it is very easy -- if you are sorting, and a <titleSort> exists, just 
> grab and go; if it doesn't, grab <title> and go. I think constructs 
> like this:   <mainTitle nonSort="The ">Best of times</mainTitle> are 
> just asking for trouble. As much as possible, I think we need to strive 
> for a spec that makes it darn difficult to flub it up -- either from 
> the "data entry" viewpoint (realizing that many of these won't 
> necessarily be keyed in), or the processing viewpoint.
> 
> Also, punctuation, such as a colon between the title and subtitle 
> SHOULD NOT be there, unless you wanted to do something like 
> <titleDisplay>Title: Subtitle</titleDisplay>. The problem with 
> including punctuation is that there are times when you don't want it, 
> then what do you do? For example, see the way we handle titles and 
> subtitles on this book: <http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft1s20045x/>. 
> Because MARC includes the punctuation, we have to use the title and 
> subtitle from a different source. I think that's one problem from MARC 
> days we would do well to leave behind. Allow punctuation to be put in 
> at the time of processing, unless it is unalterably a part of the 
> information being captured.
> Roy
> 
> On Jan 22, 2004, at 3:46 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:48, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> >
> >> Can you give a marked up example Karen?  One of the nice things about
> >> the current situation is that you can have:
> >>
> >> <titleInfo>
> >>     <title>A Long Title that Could be Shortened</title>
> >>     <subTitle>Subtitle</subTitle>
> >> </titleInfo>
> >> <titleInfo type="abbreviated">
> >>     <title>A Long Title</title>
> >> </titleInfo>
> >
> > I'm thinking along these lines:
> >
> > Create a <title> complex element that has
> >   <mainTitle>
> >   <subTitle>
> >   <partNumber>
> >   <partName>
> >   <nonSort> [although below I'll talk about how I would rather see
> > nonSort handled]
> >
> > Create a <titleOther> element that extends <title> and adds the
> > attributes "abbreviated", "translated", etc.
> >
> > Then if there was a desire to make <title> a required element, that
> > could be done by changing the definition of modsType or someone could
> > extend modsType to make it more "strict" (as Andy has pointed out).
> >
> > It probably ends up being 6 of one and half dozen of another, but for
> > some reason it feels cleaner to me this way.
> >
> > As for nonSort, just to be contrary, THAT I would like to see as an
> > attribute. I'm uneasy with nonSort just floating around amid a bunch of
> > other elements. My definition would limit it to the beginning of the
> > string. So:
> >
> >   <title>
> >     <mainTitle nonSort="The ">Best of times</mainTitle>
> >     <subTitle nonSort="an ">essay on entertaining</subTitle>
> >   </title>
> >
> > This is all very debatable. Some folks want to do nonSort in the middle
> > of a string (and I'm making up all of these examples, so don't get too
> > hung up on them):
> >
> >    <nonSort>an </nonSort>
> >    <subTitle>essay</subTitle>
> >    <nonSort> on </nonSort>
> >    <subTitle>entertaining</subTitle>
> >
> > I'd rather see that as:
> >    <subTitle nonSort="an ">essay</subTitle>
> >    <subTitle nonSort=" on ">entertaining</subTitle>
> >
> > although in fact I'd prefer that people not do nonSort designations
> > within an element. I think we get into all kinds of dangerous ground
> > there.
> >
> > Among the reasons that the free-floating nonSort worries me is that
> > implementations may not retain the spaces in the elements (whereas they
> > are more likely to in a quoted string), and I think it's easier to 
> > input
> > (just my gut). Note that a nonSort element is not always a full word 
> > and
> > doesn't always get spaces, such as in 17th and 18th century works in
> > French where the apostrophe was not used: Lhistoire.... In this case,
> > the nonSort is "L" and there are no spaces; or in Arabic, where the
> > nonSort is "al-", as in: al-ʻArabah al-dhahabīyah lā taṣʻad.
> >
> > I'm assuming of course that for display you are wanting to put the
> > nonSort back together with the title, so you'll get:
> >   The Best of times an essay on entertaining
> > (and depending on your rules, you may put punctuation between a title
> > and a subtitle -- I have no idea what people are doing about that. MARC
> > records include the punctuation in the data element.)
> >
> > More on names:
> >
> >> While we're at it, I've been thinking about name-markup a lot, because
> >> it's so critical for citations.  Leaving aside that I wish MODS used
> >> element names instead of attributes for family, given, etc., I do have
> >> a suggestion: an attribute to indicate abbreviation on the namePart
> >> element.  I also think element order is going to be important
> >>
> >> Examples:
> >>
> >> <name type="personal">
> >>     <namePart type="given">Jane</namePart>
> >>     <namePart abbrev="yes">Q</namePart>
> >>     <namePart type="family">Doe</namePart>
> >> </name>
> >>
> >> The Q above is of course commonly (in the U.S.) understood as a middle
> >> initial.
> >
> > I was about to suggest that you can consider a single letter or a 
> > letter
> > followed by a period to be an initial if that is important for your
> > processing, when I thought about "Wm.". In any case, I'm still not sure
> > what the extra mark-up is going to get you that you can't divine
> > algorithmically, which is how you would probably be arriving at the
> > coding to begin with.
> >
> >>
> >> A corporate name:
> >>
> >> <name type="corporate">
> >>     <namePart abbrev="yes">FBI</namePart>
> >>     <namePart>Federal Bureau of Investigation</namePart>
> >> </name>
> >
> > I think this is unclear -- you don't know if you have a name with two
> > parts - one that's abbreviated and one that isn't, i.e.
> >   U. S. Department of Commerce
> >   <namePart abbrev="yes">U. S.</namepart>
> >   <namePart>Department of Commerce</namePart>
> >
> > or two versions of the same name, as you have. This kind of situation 
> > is
> > better handled with authority records rather than in the bibliographic
> > record because there is a way to associated variations on a name. The
> > other option would be to have an attribute for "name variation", which
> > to me is clearer than having two name parts that may or may not
> > represent the whole name.
> >
> > [Note: I have done a first pass at a version of the authority format in
> > what I hope is a MODS-compatible schema, and have given it to LC for
> > review. That might be a solution for some of the problems that are
> > coming up around names.]
> >
> >
> >>
> >> In the end, I suppose this is how I'd do things if I was designing a
> >> new schema:
> >>
> >> <creator role="editor">
> >>     <person ID="doej">
> >>       <name>
> >>         <termOfAddress>Sir</termOfAddress>
> >>         <given>John</given>
> >>         <other abbrev="yes">Q</other>
> >>         <articular>van</articular>
> >>         <family>Doe</family>
> >>         <termOfAddress>Duke of X</termOfAddress>
> >>         <full>Sir John Q. van Doe, Duke of X</full>
> >>       </name>
> >>       <note>some notes ...</note>
> >>     </person>
> >> </creator>
> >>
> >> The advantage is that role is separated from the person, and person
> >> from name, allowing additional elements to be wrapped in there as well
> >> that are apart from "names."  This is a bit beyond the realm of MODS,
> >> though.
> >
> > Yes, but I like this structure. It gets role out of the name area. That
> > actually makes sense in a system with a separate authority file for
> > names because the same person (read: same name) will be in different
> > roles in different bibliographic records, but is always him/herself as 
> > a
> > person.
> >
> > -- 
> > -------------------------------------
> > Karen Coyle
> > Digital Library Specialist
> > http://www.kcoyle.net
> > Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
> > --------------------------------------
> >
-- 
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager