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  April 2002

MODS April 2002

Subject:

Granularity issue

From:

"Randall K. Barry" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:08:52 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (66 lines)

A number of the messages that have been posted to the MODS list over the
past week seem to deal with the granularity issue.  Most of us are
aware of the level of granularity in MARC and the relative absence of it
in Dublin Core.  MODS appears to be establishing, or at least suggesting,
a new level of granularity somewhere in between.  Whether someone is
talking about names, titles, or subjects, as Karen Coyle pointed out in
her last posting to the list, every community is going to have it's own
notions and requirements about granularity.  Even the library community is
not in total agreement.  AACR divides information one way, ISBD does it
slightly differently, and MARC too takes a sometimes unique approach
although tries to accommodate both other standards.  I would hate to
see MODS get bogged down by this issue.  It seems clear that MODS is
attempting to eliminate granularity that has not proven useful.  In the
case of headings, for example, this might mean the loss of subfielding.
I hope we can avoid making MODS as granular as MARC or AACR.  Since the
ISBDs have not, up to now, dealt with headings, we are still a bit freer
to design things for headings, although MARC seems to be pushing us toward
greater granularity there.

After considering the granularity issue I have come to the conclusion that
very little of it (in MARC at least) is actually put to much good
use.  What seems to be of greatest importance in MARC is actually the
useful redundancy provided.  The fact that there are distinct data
elements for an inverted (and highly granular form of name) and a
trascription of the name as it appeared on a bibliographic item seems to
provide the most for later use.  The granularity of the encoding of that
data doesn't seem to matter much in most systems.  It makes me wonder why
we do it at all in MARC, and certainly dissuades me from having any of
that granularity in MODS.

Thus, I am not fond of any of the proposals I have read that suggest
additional granularity in specific MODS elements.  I can only see
usefulness in providing some redundant (ungranular!) elements to
support different uses of the data.  This does raise the questions, will
people ACTUALLY use these elements?  We have fought with this for years in
MARC with nonlibrarians who find it so hard to understand why we have a
transcription of names in field 245 and then repeat them in 1XX, 6XX, and
7XX fields.  The same questions would be raised about titles.  I think we
need to look closely at the granularity and perhaps too at areas where
there might be "useful redundancy" in MODS and rationalize our choices.

I'll end this message with a question:

With the ability to use initial and final wildcards in searching, in
addition to the power of string and Boolean search techniques, do we
really need to do ANYTHING special with the encoding of articles
and the parts of names/subjects anymore?

The answer(s) might guide us on whether any additional granularity is
needed in MODS name and title elements.

 --------------------------------------------------
Randall K. Barry
Library of Congress
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-4402  U.S.A.
TEL: +1-202-707-5118
FAX: +1-202-707-0115
NET: [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------
Ideas and opinions expressed in this communication
are personal and do not necessarily reflect the
position of the Library of Congress.
--------------------------------------------------

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

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