Thanks for taking a stab! I will read this carefully and see what I can
figure out for what I am working on and what might be best for the MODS
scheme to try to tackle.
As I was writting my email yesterday I realized that I might be trying to
put too much into the record.
I think I need to try to diagram what I am doing so I am not tangling up
stuff. My MODS record is trying to be a base for the main data and the
<pageBreak> in my digitized text has the specifics of the single citation
and then points to this MODS attempt to pull the rest of the data. I might
be trying to mix too much together at once.
Something like a foot note would take a page reference and then it would
pull the publisher author etc from the MODS records. A bibliography would
just go to the MODS record for the citation of the entire source.
<ouch>My title is just a nasty thing since it is a digitized version of a
book. The book belongs to a set. The set is part of a monographic series.
I need my scientists to be able to cite the digitized version , reference
the old physical piece and let everyone know that it is part of the giant
If we look at the legal citations it can be kinda similar in that you need
to cite your case - and then if it was appealled you have to give it the
value of affirmed or overturned (or something like that) and then the
citation for that case. So it is also this nested kind of thing... In away..
FRBR gives me the spins since it is more on gathering various versions of
the same thing - not nesting piece parts together like this. FRBR would
bring the book of Pippi Longstocking and the audio tape of Pippi
Longstocking and the play of Pippi and the movie of Pippi all together. (I
Back to my thinking cap,
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] 05/09/03 09:49AM >>>
I started to answer your question Suzanne, but then got confused and
thought I'd let someone else answer. Since that didn't happen I'll
send this anyway...
> So, how do we stand on being able to pull out the data needed?
> If we use my poor beatles... whoopse I mean beetles.
Schematically, and following from the note yesterday, why not:
Record 1 Project as a whole (BCA)
Record 2 Collection as a whole (the beetle stuff; in
turn linked to 1)
Records 3-6 Each separate volume (each linked to 2)
Records 7-??? Each separate part (each
linked to their respective
Your example is tricky, because it is not a citation in the traditional
sense, which AFAIK always refer to a specific object rather than
everything in a collection. If I have an edited book with individual
chapters, I would never cite the book and include each separate chapter
title in a single reference. Instead I would have a series of entries
that each point to the main record.
But maybe your example here could be conceptualized in the same way as
a series of citations that look like one?
> _Insecta. Coleopter_. v. 4 _Rhynchophora_. pt. 4_Curculionidae
> Curculionoidea._ G. C. Champion. (vii, 750 p., 35 plates) 1902-1906.
> 12 of the _Biologia Centrali-Americana_ F. D. Ducane and O. Salvin,
> 1879-1915) Smithsonian Institution Libraries, 2003.
*IF* I understand right, you are basically wanting a citation for the
collection as a whole, and then within that to insert the citationInfo
and record title of two additional records: one for volume 4, and
another for part 4 of volume 4.
In my edited book chapter example, I'd typically have:
Doe, J. (1973) "A Chapter Title," in The Book Title, pp34-52.
If I cited another chapter from the same book, it'd be a separate entry
Doe, J. (1973) "Another Chapter Title," in The Book Title, pp53-64.
So can we say the analog to your situation would thus be the following?
Doe, J. (1973) "A Chapter Title" (pp34-52), "Another Chapter Title"
(pp53-65) in The Book Title.
While this makes sense to me, I'm not sure how you'd write an XSLT file
to pull this all together properly (I bet it can be done; I just don't
have those kinds of skills).
I wonder if another analog is different expressions (in the language of
the FRBR, which I'm only just learning about) of the same work. Can
MODS account for this with its related item element? Could one have a
record for a Beethoven Symphony as an intellectual work, and then link
to different expressions (performances/recordings) records?