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:

Documentation and subject headings

From:

Geoff Mottram <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:07:52 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

Having read your announcement regarding the MINERVA project, I came across a
statement about how subject headings might be entered that made me realize
there is much about MODS I don't understand.  In your email you mention:

    "2.      MODS offers a lot of flexibility in terms of how specific you
want the
markup to be (e.g. you can subfield the elements of a subject heading or
just use an LCSH string). That will allow for different methods of input
depending upon the expertise of the person creating the record. It will
also serve us well as a preliminary catalog record if we can receive the
more detailed encoding."

I happen to disagree with you on this.  I don't see why a MODS record should
support both forms of a subject entry (as a single XML element with dashes
or as a series of XML elements without dashes).  If a user is capable of
typing in those double dashes, they can just as easily split out the subject
into sub-elements.  This is another example of MODS trying to make too many
people happy and the end result is a system that will be difficult for
machines to process when you are done.  MODS subjects should be required to
be sub-divided in cases where a user would have input dashes.

This brings me to a second point.  I believe I now know why you are getting
so little feedback on MODS and why I often have to drag myself to critique
it: because your MODS web site lacks a document like the MARC concise
formats to describe in English how each MODS element is applied.  Pouring
over the schema (and I suspect that many other subscribers to this list know
as little about XML schemas as I do) and example records is too much like
having to interpret ancient texts and trying to divine the author's intent.

For example, I missed entirely in my perusal of MODS that subjects can be
entered in one of two ways until you sent out the MINERVA announcement.
There is no documentation on how one would create subject heading fields and
it was only after I read your announcement and then checked some of the MODS
examples that I noticed subjects entered with dashes.

I suspect that there are many other issues in the MODS specification that
have been left unsaid.  There needs to be more than just a schema and some
examples.  MODS requires real documentation with guidelines for using and
applying each element and attribute.

Sincerely,

Geoff Mottram
Minaret Corp.
[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