LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


[email protected]


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 2002

MODS March 2002

Subject:

Re: Documentation and subject headings

From:

"Houghton,Andrew" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:34:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (113 lines)

> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 01:45 PM
>
> Thank you both for starting a dialogue. MODS is really under
> construction
> at this point; we realize that we need some additional
> documentation and
> that will be coming. We did want to get feedback about some of our

We look forward to the additional documentation.

> it. I'm not quite sure what you mean about copying subject headings

The current problem with MARC21, that was propagated to MODS, is that
you copy the LC Subject Authority 1XX Heading into the 6XX field of
the bibliographic record.  There are some minor punctuation differences
with trailing periods, etc., probably due to AACR2.  The problem is that
LC changes the Subject Authority Heading and now the Bibliographic
records is out of sync.  Or the cataloger whom copies the LC Subject
Authority 1XX Heading copies it incorrectly.

Now we have a situation where, when you try to cross reference the 6XX
field with LC Subject Authority file you cannot find the appropriate
1XX Heading.  LC should really mandate using subfield-0, in their
cataloging, so the 6XX refers back to the appropriate Subject Authority
records.  They should probably use subfield-5 as well.

By making that small change to LC's cataloging practices, at least you know
which Authority record to go back to when the heading is in error.  You can
then place the correct heading into the bibliographic record.  But the whole
notion of copying from one to the other is wrong.  You should just link to
the appropriate Authority record.  This is essentially what the subfield-0
does.  So the only essential subfield in the 6XX should be subfield-0.

> Your comment about the project going ahead without serious review of
> MODS: I assume you are referring to the Minerva project that I sent a
> message about. We are using this project to test MODS as an element
> set. If some of the details in MODS changes because of the
> current review

I guess that wasn't clear to me, that you were using it as a test pilot.
Thank you for the clarification.

> You made a comment about problems with the schema,
> particularly with DDC
> identifiers, but you didn't elaborate, so I don't really know
> what you had
> in mind.

There is a reason why the 082 field in MARC21-a and MARC21-b use
indicator 1 and subfield-2.  A DDC class without edition and
possible translation information is a useless DDC class.  LCC
doesn't have the concept of edition and revision.  Other
classification schemes do.  For example, you could have a DDC
class in Edition 19 of the full Edition that was valid.  In
Edition 20 it was deleted and in Edition 22 the number was reused
for something entirely different.

The current MODS format does not seem to take that into account
for classification schemes nor Subject vocabularies.  In reality,
this follows the same reasoning as Subject Headings, classification
identifiers should be linked with XLink rather than embedding them
into the data.  This nicely, takes care of the problems with other
classification schemes that have additional components such as
edition, revision, and translation.  You should only specify the
URI to the class in question.

MODS needs to make better use of URI's.  In addition I would prefer
to see a DTD schema as well as the XML Schema version.  XML Schema
is bulky and fine for server to server or server to workstation
class transmission.  When you start looking at small computing
devices, it is unlikely that the 500+ page XML Schema specification
will be implemented by those devices.  It appears that you can
easily provide both, if you would use NMTOKEN encoded values rather
than the XML Schema xsd:string (analogous to DTD CDATA), specific
encodings.

For example in MODS you have:

  <language authority="iso 639-2b">eng</language>

Specify the encoding for the authority element according to the rules
for NMTOKEN.  Thus "iso 639-2b" would become "iso639-2b".  This way
they can be checked by an XML parser when using a DTD implementation.
As a matter of fact, here again is a place were you should be using
URI's and/or XLink.  For example:

  <language authority="http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2b#">
    eng
  </language>

or maybe:

  <language role="http://lcweb.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2b#eng" />

Another example:

  <internetMediaTypes authority=
    "ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types">
    text/html
  </internetMediaTypes>

or (note tag name changed to be more generic)

  <mediaType role=

"ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types#text/ht
ml" />



Andy.

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

December 2023
November 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
November 2020
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