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  September 2003

MODS September 2003

Subject:

Re: location, location, location

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:52:37 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (91 lines)

As a bit of history, I'll review how we've treated URIs in MARC. I'm not
sure how much bearing it has on this discussion (but we do want to
maintain compability), and it does point out the complexities here.

Field 856 was defined in MARC 21 as "Electronic Location" in the early
1990s, actually before the URL was finalized. We chose a holdings field
for a reason: because this was considered equivalent to 852 (Location),
which is used to record the repository/holding institution in the physical
sense. The thought was that as a location it could be used either in a
bibliographic record or a holdings record. (Now a number of institutions
use it as a holdings field, but I won't go into that.)

Several years later LC was interested in recording persistent names for
electronic items. Since the name needed to be associated with the
particular location, we used subfields of 856 $d (Path) and $f (Electronic
name). (Many subfields were defined because in the early days we didn't
know whether we wanted to parse the pieces of the URL.) We used $d for the
"aggregate name", actually a directory that brought together different
files of the same intellectual object and $f for the particular filename;
together these served as a persistent ID (we knew we were going to move
the files from one server to another, so didn't want to use $u for the
URL).  As things progressed and we decided to use handles for persistent
names (and we considered a handle a URN, even though it wasn't officially
registered), we took a proposal to define a subfield of 856 for a URN
($g). Shortly after that the MARC Advisory Committee considered a proposal
to make $g obsolete and redefine $u as "URI", because it was argued (quite
strongly by a prominent W3C member) that the distinction between URL and
URN was not needed and all should be considered URIs. Since then LC has
supplied in its records handles that are resolvable by attaching an http:
proxy server name (which is essentially a URL with a persistent name
attached) and those have been recorded in 856$u.

The 024 field is used for "Other Standard Identifier" (i.e. other than
those that have their own fields) and includes various kinds of
identifiers, such as SICI, International Standard Recording Code, etc. A
proposal recently approved specified using this field for the
International Standard Text Code (ISTC) when appropriate. There is no
definition in that field now for recording URIs that are persistent names.
One could argue that there should be given Ray's statements below.

Ray's arguments make a lot of sense, but I am mainly concerned about the
ability of the person creating the metadata to distinguish between a URI
as persistent name and a URI as a locator. This is not immediately
apparent by looking at the URI string. Or if you don't know would you
always record it twice? That brings up the problem or redundancy.

I'd be interested in further thoughts about this issue.

Rebecca

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

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