I have a suggestion with regards to the MINERVA project. If you really want
to see what types of problems consumers of MODS data will have, you should
be creating records that use every style of input allowed by your schema.
Merely choosing a single convention for inputting names or subjects, for
example, won't be much of a challenge nor will it tell you whether your
schema is really useful. But try to search a mish-mash of input styles and
you will begin to see the dangers in allowing too many alternative ways of
creating a MODS record. If, in order to accept and use a batch of MODS
records, a user will have to massage the data in order to do something
useful with it, MODS will fall flat on its face.
On a separate and unrelated note, I can't find any mention of non-sorting
characters with regards to the MODS title field. Any thoughts on this
timeless, nagging little issue.
[log in to unmask]
p.s. My spell checker really wants to change the name of MODS to MOODS.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: [MODS] MODS project at LC
This message details a project at the Library of Congress for which we
plan to use MODS for the metadata.
MINERVA (Mapping the Internet: Electronic Resources Virtual
Archive) see: http://lcweb.loc.gov/minerva/minerva.html (formally known
as the Web Preservation Project), is an experimental pilot developed to
identify, select, collect and preserve open-access materials from the
World Wide Web. The effort includes consensus building within the Library,
joint planning with external bodies, studies of the technical, copyright
and policy issues, the development of a long-term plan and coordination of
prototypes. The aim is to identify what can be done immediately and move
rapidly through prototype into production in these areas.