LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  September 2003

MODS September 2003

Subject:

Re: location, location, location

From:

Caroline Arms <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:16:34 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (129 lines)

Rebecca,

From an abstract point of view I agree with the arguments for treating 856
$u as location and repeating the value if it acts both as location and
identifier. In my own situation, existing practices and transformations
can be adapted without difficulty.

My remaining concern was on behalf of implementers elsewhere -- wanting to
allow time for discussion. If implementers have not raised their own
concerns by now, I have no problem with the approach you and Ray are
suggesting.

   Thanks. Caroline

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:

> Although I agree that we don't want to make any rash decisions about this
> change, I am coming around to believe that we need to allow for URLs as
> locators in the <location> element. I did want to address your concerns.
>
> 1. Mapping to simple Dublin Core for OAI (or other) purposes
>
> If we allow for URIs in both location and identifier in MODS, this will be
> just another case where MODS provides distinctions where Dublin Core
> doesn't, because the latter only has 15 elements. There are lots of
> situations where more than one MODS element would map to one DC element,
> as multiple MARC elements map to one DC element. So both <location> (with
> type="electronic or whatever we use to make this distinction) and
> <identifier) would map to dc:identifier.
>
> 2. effect on existing applications
>
> We plan to provide a stylesheet to do a conversion from MODS 2.0 to MODS
> 3.0. We would expect that uses of identifier with type="uri" are most
> likely all locations, so the conversion between MODS versions would put
> them in location.
>
> Also, in terms of the MARC mapping, 856$u is defined as "Electronic
> location and access" and, although some data there are both identifiers
> and locations, it would not be incorrect to map them all to <location>.
> Probably the only ones that do not belong in location are those that are
> "raw" handles or DOIs or something, where the identifier string is not
> attached to a server name. And it's unlikely any of these have been
> recorded there.
>
> > Moving the element that provides access to the content itself seems
> > inherently more likely to provide nasty surprises to developers or those
> > who have descriptive guidelines in use than most of the other changes
> > from 2.0.
>
> The fact that it provides access maybe says it IS a location. But what
> other surprises could you foresee that you haven't mentioned above that we
> might need to be prepared to deal with?
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Caroline Arms wrote:
>
> > Ray,
> >
> > Although I agree that the distinction between an identifier and a location
> > is useful to draw and can see very good arguments for what you propose, I
> > see it as too significant a change to slip in at the eleventh hour. If you
> > want MODS 3.0 to come out soon, I would prefer to see this issue deferred
> > until the next version.
> >
> > Quite apart from the issue of redundancy, and what you propose will
> > certainly be perceived as redundant at first glance, I see potential
> > ramifications in a couple of important areas:
> >
> > mapping to simple Dublin Core for OAI (or other) purposes
> >
> > effect on existing applications
> >
> > Moving the element that provides access to the content itself seems
> > inherently more likely to provide nasty surprises to developers or those
> > who have descriptive guidelines in use than most of the other changes from
> > 2.0.
> >
> > Just my two cents. Have a good weekend.
> >
> > Caroline Arms [log in to unmask]
> > Office of Strategic Initiatives
> > Library of Congress
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to propose for consideration a MODS change, to be applied in 3.0.
> > > (I think this is an important change, and that the impact on the schema is
> > > fairly small.)
> > >
> > > I suppose I had though that if you have a URL to access an item and you want
> > > to include it in a MODS record for that item, you could put it in the
> > > <location> element. Well, you can't. <location> is essentially
> > > physical.It's defined as sourceType with an authority attribute for an
> > > organization code. The authority can be omitted in which case it's just a
> > > string, but there isn't any way to indicate it's a URL. It appears that the
> > > prescribed way to code a URL is as an identifier (the <identifier> element)
> > > of type URI. Recent discussion of 'date accessed' has brought this to my
> > > attention. (I think Bruce brought it up. But I should have realized this
> > > long ago.)
> > >
> > > Coding a URL as an identifier, when the intent is to provide a URL for
> > > access, is a big mistake. I'm willing to elaborate profusely on this point
> > > if anyone needs to be convinced.
> > >
> > > To be clear: if the intent of supplying a URI is to provide an identifier --
> > > even when that string also happens to to be a URL that can be used to access
> > > the resource -- by all means, put it in the <identifier> element and call it
> > > an identifier. But if the intent is also to provide location information, we
> > > need somewhere in addition to put it (if that means putting an identical
> > > string in two places, so be it), and the logical place would be <location> I
> > > think.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is to add an attribute to <location> to indicate if it's a
> > > physical or electronic source (values 'physical' and 'electronic' or please
> > > suggest alternative values); in the latter case a URL would be assumed.
> > >
> > > This will take a little fiddling with the definition and references to
> > > sourceType, but not much.
> > >
> > > Please comment soon on this proposal, as we want to get 3.0 out.
> > >
> > > --Ray
> > >
> >
>

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

December 2023
November 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
November 2022
October 2022
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