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 2002

MODS March 2002

Subject:

Alternate proposal

From:

Geoff Mottram <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:41:49 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (242 lines)

I would like to propose an alternative declaration for the name, subject
and title elements that tackles the various issues raised with the
current implementation. It requires the general design philosophy that
if an element may contain sub-elements, it should not also contain
regular content. To make an analogy to MARC, you can have fixed fields
that only have data content and you can have variable fields that only
contain subfields, but you cannot mix the two models. This philosophy
should be applied throughout the MODS schema and will lead to data that
is much easier to process with standard software components (including
relational databases).

----------
NAME FIELD
----------
For the name field, I propose renaming it to "creator" with the
following structure:

creator
        ID (attribute)
        role (attribute)
        authority (attribute)
        link (attribute)
        typeAuthority (attribute)
        typeLink (attribute)

        affiliation (element)
        displayForm (element)
        name (element)
                type (attribute)
        description (element)
        type (element)

All attributes are optional (to make record creation as easy as possible
but to allow for more sophisticated cataloging if desired) and there
must be at least one "name" element which is repeated for each level of
a hierarchical (structured) name. Dashes are not permitted and all names
must be broken out according to their hierarchical structure. The
"description" element is used for cases like "Abrams, Michael (American
artist, 20th c.)":

        <creator>
                <type>personal</type>
                <name>Abrams, Michael</name>
                <description>(American artist, 20th c.)</description>
        </creator>

A corporate name would look like this:

        <creator>
                <type>corporate</type>
                <type>government</type>
                <name>Library of Congress</name>
                <name>National Digital Library Program</name>
                <displayForm>Music Division, Library of Congress</displayForm>
        </creator>

The "link" attribute would allow a link to an authority record for the
whole name. This would satisfy Andrew's concerns about typo's in the
"name" elements and also allow for cases where the authority entry does
not match exactly the version in this field (because of additional
authority subheadings, punctuation, etc.).

You will notice that I have made "type" an element and it is also
repeating.  This allows for a multi-level approach to describing the
type of name without limiting an implementation to a fixed number of
levels.

The "type" element would support the following values: "personal",
"corporate", "conference", etc. The list would not be closed and users
would be free to add to it. Subtypes could be defined by adding a second
"type" field that might include the following values for a "corporate"
type name: "profit", "nonprofit", "government", etc.).  Subtypes could
also be used to distinguish between forms of a personal name
("forename", "surname", "family name") but I have another suggestion for
that problem, below.

The "typeAuthority" and "typeLink" attributes allow for the definition
of an authority list for a hierarchy of type terms and a link to a
particular entry.

There is also a "type" attribute for the "name" element for cases where
a user would like to make some sort of distinction here. This has
greater applicability in the subject field.

The "name" field would always be entered as it should be sorted.  If
this is different from how it is displayed, a "displayForm" element
should be included.  This solves the first name, last name debate and
also allows for other language related sorting situations that we have
not accounted for.  For example, in Dutch phone books, the "van" at the
start of a last name is ignored in the sorting sequence because so many
people in Holland have a last name starting with "van". This is not
unlike non-filing characters in titles.  My point is, this proposed
technique is the most flexible in terms of user needs without having to
anticipate what those needs are. It also avoids having to sub-divide
names any more than necessary.

----------
SUBJECT FIELD
----------
The subject has an identical design, except the "name" element is called
"term", as follows:

subject
        ID (attribute)
        role (attribute)
        authority (attribute)
        link (attribute)
        typeAuthority (attribute)
        typeLink (attribute)

        affiliation (element)
        displayForm (element)
        term (element)
                type (attribute)
        description (element)
        type (element)

All attributes and elements are optional except for "term", of which
there must be at least one. The "type" element might include the
following values: "personal", "corporate", "conference", "topic",
"title", "geographic", "temporal" and "classification". Subtypes might
include those needed for each of the main types. For "geographic" this
might include: "city", "continent", "country", "county", "island",
"province", "region", "state" and "territory".  For "classification" it
might include: "lcc", "ddc", etc.

It is in the subject field that the utility of a multi-level type
becomes apparent. It illustrates why even two levels of types will be
insufficient for some users.  In the case of Dewey numbers, there might
be three type elements, as follows:

        <type>classification</type>
        <type>ddc</type>
        <type>Edition 19</type>

The "part" element contains an optional "type" attribute to distinguish
between different types of terms, if desired.  For example:

        <subject authority="lcsh">
                <term type="topic">Journalism</topic>
                <term type="topic">Political aspects</topic>
                <term type="geographic">United States.</geographic>
        </subject>

----------
TITLE FIELD
----------
With regards to the title field, it needs to be redesigned to support
non-sorting characters in a manner that would be easy to implement with
off-the-shelf software. The idea of a pair of non-sorting character
codes as defined in MARC-21 is an interesting solution but one that is
highly specific to the library market. I would like to suggest an idea
that would have worked just as well in pre-MARC-21: a separate subfield
for the leading article.  Thus the title field would be defined as
follows:

title
        ID (attribute)
        role (attribute)
        authority (attribute)
        link (attribute)
        typeAuthority (attribute)
        typeLink (attribute)

        part (element)
        nonsort (element)
        type (element)

The "title" element contains most of the same attributes as the "name"
and "subject" fields with the same meanings.  The "part" element is
required and every title must contain one or more "part" elements.  The
"nonsort" element is used to surround the non-filing portion of the
title as in the following example:

        <title>
                <nonsort>The</nonsort>
                <part>Unbearable Lightness of Being</part>
        </title>

Notice how easy it is to sort titles in this format -- you just sort the
"part" elements. However, when displaying the title, you don't suppress
this data.  Notice also, that you can sprinkle the "nonsort" element
throughout a title (although I can't think of an application for this
yet).

An alternative definition for the title field would use a "displayForm"
element (as in the name and subject fields) instead of the "nonsort"
element. This would have the advantage of consistency, if nothing else,
and will also support other strange sorting situations we cannot
anticipate.

----------
UNIVERSAL FIELD
----------
A final possibility would be to create a single field definition for
creators, subjects and titles as follows:

creatorSubjectTitleType
        ID (attribute)
        role (attribute)
        authority (attribute)
        link (attribute)
        typeAuthority (attribute)
        typeLink (attribute)

        affiliation (element)
        displayForm (element)
        part (element)
                type (attribute)
        description (element)
        type (element)

There would still be separate "creator", "subject" and "title" elements
but they would all share the same list of attributes and elements. Note
that I have use the generic term "part" to contain the name, subject, or
title, as in:

        <creator>
                <type>corporate</type>
                <part>United States</part>
                <part>Dept. of Agriculture</part>
                <part>Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service</part>
        </creator>
        <title>
                <part>Asia agricultural situation; review and outlook</part>
        </title>
        <subject authority="lcsh">
                <part type="topic">Agriculture</part>
                <part type="topic">Economic aspects</part>
                <part type="geographic">Asia</part>
                <part type="topic">Periodicals</part>
        </subject>

Whether you like this proposal or not, would you please comment on it.
LC can't gauge the popularity of any of the comments on the MODS list
without more participation.

Thank you.

Geoff Mottram
[log in to unmask]

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

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