We think that MODS can cover journal articles. Generally the article title
would be in <titleInfo><title> with the appropriate elements describing
that article. The citation information would be in relatedItem
type="host". Currently the MARC Advisory Committee is working on changes
to include parsed numbering/date information for the journal citation in
MARC. We are now discussing how to represent this in MODS and will respond
further shortly (by next week). At that time, I'll work up an example.
This is also something we want to include in the MODS guidelines, which
are currently being revised after receiving lots of comments from a number
of you on this list. That we also plan to make available soon.
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> I've discussed this a bit with Rebecca off-list, but thought I may as
> well post a note for public consumption.
> I'm a social scientist who has gotten frustrated enough with my writing
> tools to have been working towards something of a revolution in that
> realm. In particular, I'd like to see XML formats replace the
> currently proprietary and binary files of products like Endnote.
> A group of like-minded non-experts has been working on a DTD to use
> with RefDB (http://refdb.sourceforge.net) and other projects (for
> example the ConTeXt TeX macro package), but midway through I found out
> about MODS and so subscribed to the list. I've been quite intrigued by
> MODS, but I have an observation, and then a question.
> The observation is that MODS is currently unsuitable for a reference
> manager application (whose job is not just to store references, but to
> precisely format them) because it cannot properly store the most
> significant source an academic is likely to cite: journal articles. In
> particular, we really need elements for things like volume and issue
> number. There may be other similar limitations, but this is the most
> The question is really about the broader suitability of MODS -- or a
> MODS-like structure -- to this use. If we want to be concrete (and why
> not?), what should we do with BibX? Here's the DTD:
> And here's information on the DTD for the formatting files that will be
> adapted to BibX:
> Currently BibX has a three part structure (work, publication and set)
> which corresponds to the analytical, publication and series structures
> of bib data. It also has -- following existing formats like BibTeX and
> RIS -- a reference "type" element, and subtype. Where we kind of
> stalled is wondering if the MARC/MODS approach of a more limited range
> of types (text, sound, etc.) and use of "genre" to specify content is
> more sensible and flexible.
> The key point to recognize is that the model needs not only to be able
> accurately store bibliographic data, but it needs to subsequently get
> accurately formatted. The formatting engine, in other words, has to
> know what to do with journal articles, versus books, versus book
> chapters. This is why, I presume, the more specific "type" one sees in
> RIS and BibTeX, but am not totally sure if this is necessary or not.
> So, why -- if at all -- adopt a more MODS-like approach for this use,
> or should we just give up on BibX altogether and adopt MODS?
> Thoughts appreciated,