Thanks for your comments on the identifer definition. We've changed it so there
is no longer any restriction on the identifier type (the list has been changed
to a comment). This change is reflected in version 1.16, June 12.  --Ray

Robin Wendler wrote:

> Let me respond to both Karen and Roy. The identifiers in question here
> are standard reference numbers for botanical publications, taken from
> Taxonomic Literature 2nd ed. (TL2) and Botanico Periodicum Huntianum
> (BPH). Glad you asked? Many databases which are not fundamentally
> bibliographic have bibliographic components (e.g., the source from
> which an image was taken, catalogs for exhibitions in which a given
> work of art was displayed, publications where a particular species was
> first identified). In certain topical areas, these may have
> discipline-specific identifiers, and it would be nice to have a place
> to put them.
>
> I thought MODS was intended to be a lightweight way of representing
> metadata that is basically bibliographic in XML, and of providing
> semantics that are a more natural fit in a library environment than
> those of Dublin Core elements. But I could be wrong. ;)
>
> I did not necessarily see a bias toward conversion from existing MARC
> vs. initial creation in MODS. Nor did I see it as the Holy Grail
> successor to MARC. I think that the true successor to MARC will only be
> developed from rigorous analysis (as Tom Delsey has done for LC) of the
> current format and an extensive community process. Given the huge volume
> and great complexity of data flow in our community AND the current focus
> on how to implement FRBR, it will take time to get this right. I guess I
> was thinking that MARCXML and MODS between them would tide us over until
> that happy day.
>
> --Robin
>
> Robin Wendler  ........................     work  (617) 495-3724
> Office for Information Systems  .......     fax   (617) 495-0491
> Harvard University Library  ...........     [log in to unmask]
> Cambridge, MA, USA 02138  .............
>
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Roy Tennant wrote:
>
> > I'm certainly not the one to tell anyone what it _is_, but I can
> > certainly speak up about what I _hope_ it would be, and that would be a
> > general purpose, extensible, and highly granular bibliographic metadata
> > standard. I want an XML record schema that is much more extensible than
> > MARC, that can take us beyond the limitations of MARC and enable much
> > richer records (e.g., tables of contents, reviews, etc.) than is
> > presently possible without standing on our heads (just how much can we
> > stuff into a 500 field I wonder?). It should be able to take everything
> > worth saving from MARC, but also be used to create records from scratch.
> > In the best of all possible worlds, it will both replace MARC and take
> > us well beyond it. But that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
> > Roy
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 06:02 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >
> > > Robin, can you tell us what those identifers are?
> > >
> > > Also, when I asked many moons ago about the purpose of MODS I was given
> > > the
> > > impression that it was intended as a way to transform MARC to XML, and
> > > was
> > > not expected to be for the direct creation of MARC-like XML. I may have
> > > misunderstood that, but I know we had that conversation. Yet, all of the
> > > discussions of MODS that I see (outside of this list) are with people
> > > who
> > > are trying to create MODS records from non-MARC metadata.
> > >
> > > So, once again, am I thoroughly confused as to the purpose of MODS?!
> > >
> > > kc
> > >
> > > At 12:27 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, Robin Wendler wrote:
> > >> Hi, all -- Someone here took a look at MODS and rejected it in part
> > >> because his data contains two key identifiers that fall outside the
> > >> enumerated list in MODS identifierType "type" attribute. There is a
> > >> "local" value, but people will need to be able to specify the scheme
> > >> when
> > >> there is more than one unsanctioned ID number.
> > >>
> > >> I know MODS cannot be all things to all people, but do you see any
> > >> value
> > >> to allowing an optional "otherIdentifierType" attribute?
> > >>
> > >> (NB: In genreType, MODS forks between the enumerated list and an
> > >> "otherGenre". The cases are not quite parallel, but the idea is
> > >> similar.)
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your thoughts on this,
> > >>
> > >> -- Robin