On Tuesday, July 29, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

>> I think what Bruce is getting at is that XML lets us separate data
>> encoding
>> from data presentation. This makes it a different animal from MARC,
>> and
>> there is good reason to rethink how cataloging rules are to interact
>> with
>> the data storage mechanism. In particular, cataloging rules
>> proscribe data
>> presentation, e.g., AACR2 *still* focuses on how to lay out a catalog
>> card.
>> The data encoding and presentation are not divorced, as they are in
>> XML.
>> Therefore, we should be cautious in how we allow cataloging rules to
>> influence our encoding decisions.
>
> I, too, prefer the separation of encoding from presentation. I just
> don't
> think that we can use MODS to be an XML-based carrier for previously
> created metadata that doesn't have that separation (i.e., MARC) unless
> we
> allow that metadata to be translated to MODS with a minimum of
> re-coding.
> Yes, some of the re-coding can be done algorithmically, but my
> experience
> is that highly stringent rules end up not being followed. So you can
> put in
> a code in MODS for "this date is just a guesstimate", but you still
> need to
> expect to receive data that doesn't have that coding.

But if I recall, Karen, you were saying MODS shouldn't even include
facilities for this sort of coding. I firmly believe it should, and
that strict separation of form from content ought to be the norm for
MODS data. I realize that it may not be possible to auto-translate
some of the more tricky stuff (though shouldn't strict cataloguing
rules allow that?), but surely it ought to be encouraged. Likewise,
the use documentation ought to make clear the distinctions, and promote
the more forward-looking use of XML for new record creation.

[...snip...]

>> Anyhow, XML allows use to separate data encoding from presentation.
>> This is
>> true for date, authors, whatever. Cataloging rules, specifically
>> AACR2, do
>> not allow for this. Attempts to support various cataloging rules
>> should not
>> cause us to throw away the benefits of this separation.
>
> No, but in reality we have to support both, and we should support both.

My worry is that if people on this list don't take this issue more
seriously, MODS data will end up much more limited than it ought to be.

I just realized the other day that the arguments I've been making on
this list amount to arguments about proper XML practice, and have
little to do with bibliographic data per se. Yet virtually every time
I'm met with the sense that there is something sacred in AACR2. I
think these rules need a major rethink for the XML world.

Again, I realize practical considerations matter, but they shouldn't
hamper the MODS design. So, I really think we need a simple qualifier
attribute that can cover dates and names. Oh, and it'd be nice if we
could at some point come back to the subject of quotes and so forth in
titles....

Bruce