> While there is a common core, library catalogues are notoriously useless
as a source for citation purposes.>
Even as a cataloger, I still see the point of the above comment without
getting my feelings hurt.
I also understand what Rebecca reported about the MARC group looking into
ways to tag the volume, issue, etc. information.
My frustration comes if we have to wait for MARC to do something before MODS
can act. If MODS parses the information and tags it then it should be
"map-able" to whatever the MARC community comes up with eventually.
The host / related item field works to a point - but being able to build a
true citation out of the MODS record is still very difficult.
I look forward to seeing the example.
Suzanne C. Pilsk
Smithsonian Institution Libraries
PO Box 37012
Natural History Building, Room 30- MRC 0154
Washington, DC 20013-7012
[log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/10/03 19:24 PM >>>
Am forwarding this for Peter, who is a member of the BibX list, but not
MODS it seems...
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Peter Flynn <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:45:56 PM US/Eastern
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BibX-list] MODS, bibliographic managers and journal
> On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 20:41, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> I'm a social scientist who has gotten frustrated enough with my
>> 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.
> I came from the printing/puiblishing field, so I have a similar desire
> but for other reasons (I have to support a user community who still
> don't understand why they shouldn't "just" italicise this, bold that,
> and underline this, and leave it at that :-)
>> 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.
>> 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.
> My understanding is that the MARC/MODS formats are intended for
> cataloguing, not bibliographic reference; a whole other field.
> We probably need help from the Library community here, but their
> requirements are rather different: where is this document, have we
> paid for it, it is out on loan, etc, rather than how we format it
> for citation.
> While there is a common core, library catalogues are notoriously
> as a source for citation purposes.
>> 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
>> RIS and BibTeX, but am not totally sure if this is necessary or not.
> Essential. One of the biggest problems is that cataloguers don't
> classify documents in this way.
>> 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?
> I think we need a usable (if imperfect) public format exhibiting the
> best features of BibX, RefDB, etc, with a reliable import/export to
> MARC and MODS (if possible) -- but we do seriously need some good
> librarians on board here, ones who understand the diff between a
> catalogue and a citation database.
> BibX-list mailing list
> [log in to unmask]