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  March 2009

MODS March 2009

Subject:

Re: Addition of new type value "reviewOf" for relatedItem

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:09:31 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

I'm assuming that the bibliographic item being described is a journal 
article; at least, that's where I have encountered book reviews. In that 
case, the genre of the item *being described* is a book review, and the 
subject of the review would be the book. I understand the convenience of 
using related item, but I don't think that is really in keeping with the 
meaning of the related item field (which is for bibliographic, not 
topical, relationships). In essence, a review in a journal article is 
just a short version of a scholarly essay or book about another work. 
For those, we use the subject relationship: Melville, Herman, 1819-1891. 
Moby Dick -- Criticism.

So it seems that what is needed is a 'review' genre that has this sense 
of 'book review' for the resource being described. There could be other 
kinds of reviews: reviews of performances, reviews of poetry, reviews of 
new journals.... For this reason, it seems that a genre 'review' would 
cover the most ground. The MARC genre list has the term 'review' but I 
can't find a definition for it (it's 008/24 in books). There are also 
'review articles' that cover a broad topic area, and it would be 
important not to confuse these two.

Taking this further, as we move toward more of an entity-relationship 
model for our data, the relationships between documents need more 
attention. I suspect that no one set of relationships will satisfy all 
needs. For example, the academic journal world has a particular set of 
relationships that aren't found elsewhere, such as responses to the 
research of others, replication of research, corrections to data, etc. 
Patents also have a unique set of relationships in their listings of 
prior art. Music, ah, it's always music that comes up with interesting 
cases, like arrangements and setting poems to music, etc. All of these 
need to be defined somewhere, but I would not like to see us try to fit 
everyone into a 'one size fits all' list. I think that allowing 
creativity in the relationships will get us a richer bibliographic universe.

kc

ArjanTh wrote:
> Dear MODS users,
>
> The Dutch scientific institutions – united in Surfshare (the successor of
> DAREnet) – have decided to use MODS in the description of objects in their
> repositories. The main reason to do so is the higher granularity MODS offers
> to its users.
>
> For most type of documents,  MODS is providing us with nice examples in the
> “Sample MODS Version 3 XML Documents”, available at:
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-guidance.html. Unfortunately, no
> example has been given on how to handle with ‘book reviews’. 
>
> Of course, others have pointed out this problem as well (see the discussions
> on the MODS forum). But pointing out the problem will not automatically lead
> to a final solution.  In November 2007, Jenn Riley has started the
> discussion on this subjects and Joe Altimus has made good suggestions to
> overcome the problems (as agreed to by Rebecca Guenther).
>
> Meanwhile, workarounds are being developed at several places to create book
> review descriptions in MODS. This is understandable, but we don’t think this
> is a welcome development. 
>
> In Europe (the DRIVER project) and more specifically in the Netherlands, we
> need to find a way to handle ‘book reviews’ as soon as possible. The Royal
> Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (the maintainer of the service
> 'NARCIS', www.narcis.info)  proposes to introduce the new type value
> "reviewOf" for 'relatedItem'. [ relatedItem type="reviewOf"> ].
>
> This solution is quite similar to the one explained by Joe Altimus in
> November 2007. In Europe it is supported by Benoît Pauwels of the Free
> University of Brussels.
>
> With this new type value "reviewOf" it will be clear to everyone how to
> create book review descriptions in MODS and it will stop the development of 
> workarounds. Besides, we think this proposal is rather easy to implement.
>
> Furthermore, it would we helpful when the 'book review' - after the approval
> of this proposal - will be introduced in the “Sample MODS Version 3 XML
> Documents”.
>
> Arjan Hogenaar
>
> --
> Arjan Hogenaar
> Research Information
> Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
> Kloveniersburgwal 29, Amsterdam
> P.O. Box 19121, 1000 GC  Amsterdam
> T.: +31 (0)20-4628641
> W: www.knaw.nl
>
>   

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

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

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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