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  July 2003

MODS July 2003

Subject:

Re: New schema and citation changes

From:

Doug <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:33:51 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (37 lines)

Unicode is a marvellous thing. But if we are going to rely on unicode alone, then we might as well drop the lang, xml:lang and script attributes completely! Those attributes are in place for greater granularity of the data. There is never a guarentee that the data will remain within a unicode framework at all times, languages are separate to scripts and both only coincidently match sometimes, and the end user may have no idea what a particular language actually is without some further indication.

The second issue looks like a showstopper when described as you describe it, Karen. But I don't think it needs to be when we are talking about xml. The beauty of xml is that the user agent is relatively free to render material only when it understands the material, and ignore it otherwise. The material remains in place and can be rendered differently by a different user agent.

Further, I know I conflated a couple of different 'deeply code[d] semantics' issues in the one set of examples. My initial concern is citations!!! I am not a librarian, though I have worked in data management in acquisitions in an academic library and my mother was a librarian. I want to be able to properly cite material in papers I write. For me to be able to do this, and for life scientists to do so (the other example that has come up in the OpenOffice.org bibliographic mailing list) requires that we have some way of indicating a separate work quoted in a title, and taxonomic names of plants and animals. A <span> tag with a type attribute with uncontrolled (for now) values would work adequately for this. Controlled values, or an authority list of values would help data interchangeability but isn't critical. The advantage of xml is that it can be human read and edited in a simple editor... if I have downloaded records from several different sources and one uses a type value!
  of 'otherwork' and another 'derivedfrom' I can easily edit one to match the other or use my citing software to do the same formatting on both.

The other deeply coded semantic issue is other xml namespaces or binary information. Binary information could be directly encoded with an encoding attribute specifying the encoding used (makes for an ugly title!!!!) or a link attribute could be used to link to a digital form of the binary information. The namespace issue could simply involve nesting an <extensions> tag within the <span> tag, or using the <extensions> tag in place of the <span> tag. The MathML chemical formula that is a part of the title of a chemistry work can then quite easily be a part of the title.

Personally, I would be happy with just a basic <span> tag for next week!!!!! ;-) (I don't ask for much :-) With a more controlled and detailed tag or set of tags in v. 2.2 or beyond.

Doug Morrison-Cleary

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:04:11 -0700
Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It looks like two things are happening in your examples -- one is that
> you are identifying different character sets ("scripts"), and another is
> that you are identifying quoted works in book titles.
>
> The first, changing scripts, should not be necessary if you are coding
> the entire record in Unicode. All of the scripts are available to you in
> that encoding (and it is the default encoding for XML).
>
> The second is something that we haven't ever done in library metadata
> but I can see will come up for many -- being able to deeply code
> semantics within the fields of a metadata record. That's a huge leap
> from where we are today and I don't think we could add this to the
> standard quickly -- different communities will each have their own needs
> (just imagine what the mathematicians will want -- embedded LaTex or
> MathML). It may be that inter-field encoding will have to lie outside of
> the MODS standard as a purely practical decision.
>
> OK, that's my gut reaction. Others?
>
> kc

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

September 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
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