I'd be interested in hearing from others about the advantages or
disadvantages of giving users options in coding the data. The reason we
were having various coding conventions was to satisfy different purposes
that MODS might be put to. For instance, in harvesting data in library
catalogs, we may not want to lose the distinctions made in the tagging,
such as under subject whether a string is topic, geographic, temporal,
etc. But using MODS for creating original records that are fairly simple,
we may not want the same granularity in identifying elements.  We do need
some experimentation to see how it falls out.

On the nonsorting characters, yes, it is a nagging issue. Any
suggestions? We realized it was a problem but hadn't come up with a
solution. Maybe use something like the control character technique that
was approved for MARC data a few years ago but not yet implemented?

Rebecca

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Geoff Mottram wrote:

> 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.
>
> Geoff Mottram
> Minaret Corp.
> [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.
>
> [SNIP]
>