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  November 2002

MODS November 2002

Subject:

Re: language attributes for MODS element.

From:

Foster Zhang <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:06:46 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

there are two issues that we have been discussing under this email subject:

1. transliteration, how should it be used with MODS, and
2. language attributes for MODS element

For the No.1 discussion, we should have it under a different email subject,
so people who not interested in it can skip, or I am willing to discuss it
in private email exchange, if most people in this list are not interested in
this discussion.

For No. 2, I do not think I have made it clear for what the real problem is.
My mistake is  to use a make up example. Let us look at a real LC record.
(CStRLIN)DCLP00-B11486

It is a marc record for a Japanese material with a correct language code
assigned to the record. The bib data itself is in English with
transliteration of title in Romanized form.

It has 7 880 fields, 4 of them has Japanese  vernacular representation, and
3 of them has Chinese  vernacular representation. By default, the metadata
itself is in English. (the same materials can be cataloged by Japanese and
Chinese use their "default" language)

Basically, we need:

1. language indication for the material we try to describe;
2. language indication for the metadata it is in, and
3. language indication for the field/element this is not in the "default"
metadata language.

Why we need so many language indicator for the metadata?

1, for the user you intended to serve: for people who do not understand
Japanese or Chinese, how can they know what data is in what language for
those field inside of the  record?

2. For search to work correctly: how the system index those data correctly?
Index Chinese data with Japanese or index Japanese data with Chinese will
only produce incorrect search result.

3. for library system to work correctly: if you put Chinese data in Japanese
font, or Japanese data in Chinese font, you will offend either side of
users, it is incorrect and is culture sensitive issues. It will tell user
how poor is this system being designed.

4. most importantly, for globe information access: the same material should
be matched up by any metadata search that carry the original vernacular
representation no matter where the metadata is being made. (This issue is
very close to the topic of next year IFLA)

Last, we should not depend on encoding system to tell us what the language
is in for the data being processed. Especially with Unicode, the property of
language and associated attributes (order/sorting, display font) are
disappeared in Unicode (in comparison to ASCII or GB). It is up to the
metadata standard to maintain such important information for global
information accessibility (by provide language information/with the data).

If we want something that close match MARC21 but with XML schema format,
there is MARCXML. I hope that MODS can provide a bridge that enable us to go
to the next generation of descriptive metadata standards that carry the
principle of MARC, but with additional capacities that have been limited by
MARC standard. Along this line, I am suggesting to enable language attribute
as a generic attribute that can be used with any elements of MODS.

Foster Zhang
===============================================
Systems Department         (650) 725-7924
Green Library East, 2nd Fl.(650) 723-3038 (fax)
Stanford University        [log in to unmask]
Stanford, CA  94305-6069   library.stanford.edu




-----Original Message-----
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Karen Coyle
Sent: 2002?11?7?(???) 17:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] language attributes for MODS element.


At 04:44 PM 11/6/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>I understood that the problem is a bit more complex :
>>The chineese word 拼音 is romanized Pinyin. Ok, it use "only" roman
>>characters, so no problem with unicode.
>>
>>But in fact the tone marks are missing.
>
>Yves, I don't think it is up to the MODS format to determine what is and
>what isn't "correct" transliteration. Different communities will use
>different ones. The US library community is in the process of moving from
>one transliteration method to another for Chinese. (Kind of the "it used
>to be Peking now it's Beijing" analogy.) What the format needs to do is to
>allow creators of metadata to carry and identify fields that represent
>different choices in how the data is presented.
*********************************************
Karen Coyle           [log in to unmask]

            http://www.kcoyle.net
**********************************************

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

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