> From: Robin Wendler [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Subject: [MODS] Is Identifier too restrictive?
> 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?
The MODS identifier, as well as other elements/attributes
*are* too restrictive. The problem results from the
enumeration of values in the Schema. The specification
should have used URI's so you could point to other
non-library specific lists. By using URI's you would not
need to modify the Schema. This is one of the biggest
reasons why the non-library metadata community will reject
MODS. This was discussed several months ago on the list.
Unfortunately, the MODS Schema is written in a way that
makes redefinition, difficult. Hopefully, some of the
redefinition concepts used in the MARC XML Schema will
rub off on the MODS Schema making redefinition of the
Schema easier. LC is still in the process, my
understanding, of revising the Schema. So maybe they
will abandon hardcoded enumeration lists in the Schema.