On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:38:25 -0700, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]>
said:
> For reasons that are hard to explain in an email, bibliographic data and
> relational db models are not compatible.

<snip>

> One system that does take in XML and was designed for
> bibliographic data is Cheshire, developed at UC Berkeley
> (http://cheshire.berkeley.edu/). It looks like you can download the
> source code, with the usual "buyer beware" kind of caveats.

Thanks for the information.  Two further questions, then:

First, so how are you guys dealing with MODS records (at the University
of California; right?)?  Are you using Cheshire, or just flat xml files?

Second, would it be reasonable to interpret your comments as meaning:

-  it is impossible to map MODS to a RDBMS without any loss

-  that this makes it a non-starter for libraries who are critically
concerned with every piece of detail

-  that it is conceivable it might be appropriate for end-user-oriented
software of the sort I'm interested in?

On the last, we're obviously really concerned with the basic structural
stuff in a record (names, titles, origin info, etc.) as well as with the
partDesc stuff coming "any day now," but less so with detailed holding
information, with authority codes, and so forth.

Bruce

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?