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:

Re: Typeless names

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:31:03 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

> From: Geoff Mottram [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Subject: [MODS] Typeless names
>
> Since you have done such a wonderful job of simplifying the
> MARC format in
> MODS, I would like everyone to consider removing the vestigial tail of
> distinguishing between types of names (personal, corporate,
> conference,
> etc...).  Is there really a need in this day and age to make such a
> distinction?

I don't think that you want to remove the distinction between names but
you do not need separate tags.  Basically, you can think of the problem
you describe in terms of what the XLink standard does with its "role"
attribute.  The "role" attribute in the XLink standard allows you to
define a relationship to the object you are describing.  The benefits
of thinking in an object/relationship fashion is that you only need to
define one generic object and some standardized URI's for relationships.

Implementers can define additional relationships, by using their own
URI's.  What's important here about "role" is that the "object" is still
the object.  You are not redefining the "object" but how you are using
that object.  As far as the MODS standard it could implement this as
the following:

  <mods:name mods:role="http://www.loc.gov/mods#conference">...</mods:name>

The MODS standard would define the "object" [in MODS context is would
be called aspect], e.g. <mods:name> where any name can be placed.  The
mods:role attribute could be optional, in which case the contents of
the object is a name with an undefined relationship.  The MODS standard
would then create the following URI's for use in the mods:role attribute:

  http://www.loc.gov/mods#conference
  http://www.loc.gov/mods#corporate
  http://www.loc.gov/mods#personal

As an implementer, if I needed to make the distinction between "for profit"
and "not for profit" corporations then I could define my own URI's to be
used as roles.  The important point here is that I still would specify the
aspect, e.g. XML element, as <mods:name>.  Anyone making use of the metadata
would know that <mods:name> is a name aspect of the metadata object.  What
role that name is playing in the relationship to the metadata object may or
may not be important to the person/program using the metadata.

> Over the past 17 years I have developed and sold MARC-based cataloging
> systems to institutions with large non-book holdings.  The
> biggest hurdles
> to "selling" the MARC format to archives and museums has been
> the steep
> learning curve and the additional time and cost required when
> creating AACR2
> MARC records.  The problem is caused by the excessive
> subfielding of data
> and the need for so much coding and classifying of each
> element ("this is a
> forename, a surname, a family name, a personal name, a
> corporate name, a
> conference" and so on).  Not only are these seemingly
> arbitrary distinctions
> hard to explain but they tend to drive users to non-standard
> and proprietary

I disagree with your notion about excessive encoding of the data being
arbitrary distinctions.  As a matter of fact AACR2 doesn't do enough
encoding.  Markup is an important concept in any metadata standard.  The
markup allows you to easily retrieve aspects of the metadata object.  You
could define a metadata object as one blob of text.  It would not be very
useful for machine processing.  Markup allows you to find the tree in
the forest.

For example in the MODS Map test record, the MARC21 255 element mapped to
the XML <cartographics> element, sub-element <coordinates> and <scale>.
The current MODS standard plops the AACR2 form down into those elements.
The problem is that <coordinates> should have been broken down into the
individual coordinate aspects of longitude and latitude rather than
relying on the AACR2 punctuation.  This is what metadata markup is all
about.  I should not have to parse punctuation to derive content.

As MARC21 record encoding now stands, LC's own records don't always have
the correct punctuation.  This makes it difficult to pull those longitude
and latitude aspects out of the AACR2 data thus requiring all kinds of
special cases.  This may be the problem with AACR2 that you eluded to above.

However, as I previously indicated, you do not need five different tags
to describe the same metadata aspect.  You should describe one aspect
that has varying roles.


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

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