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  November 2003

MODS November 2003

Subject:

Re: referenced works?

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:57:37 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (72 lines)

So now that I have the context, it seems to me that the structure of the
related works (i.e. 773 in MARC, relatedItem in MODS) would work. What
you would need is a type attribute on the relatedItem that says
something like Type=quotedIn (which I see as being slightly different to
References). Since the types give the meaning of the related item (host,
suceeding entry, etc.) we'd need to come up with a short phrase that
gives the hosting item's role -- nothing good comes to mind at the
moment.

It still feels different to me than, say, the relationship between a
book and a chapter, or an article and the journal issue. But
structurally there are lots of similarities.

kc

On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 10:59, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> > IsReferencedBy is a bit trickier, because while you may have one item
> > in hand that references your document, you have no idea how many
> > others are out there, nor how many will be created in the future. So
> > there is no concept of "completeness" for that aspect of your
> > metadata.
>
> Yes, this is (mostly) citation-oriented no doubt.  In my case, I'd use
> it when I want to quote from a work that is itself a quote.  The
> citation might be (Smith 1953: 34; quoted in Jones 2000: 44).
>
> To give more context, the proposal to improve citation support in
> DocBook has been tentatively approved.  The Technical Committee asked
> us to figure out if their suggestion of a compromise would work for
> citation in the humanities, so I've been testing it out.  Examples like
> these prove difficult.
>
> A simple citation in the new model would be:
>
> <citation><biblioref linkend="smith1953" unit="page"
> start="34"/></citation>
>
> Likewise, I could do this:
>
> <citation><biblioref linkend="smith1953a" unit="page" start="34"/>;
> quoted in <biblioref linkend="jones2000c" unit="page"
> start="44"/></citation>
>
> What Peter Flynn was suggesting (with his DocBook example) would move
> the association logic into the record itself.
>
> So say we are dealing with two books.  There'd be the main record (the
> Smith 1953), and a relatedItem "referencedBy" (the Jones 2000).  I
> don't understand how the secondary page number would be picked up, but
> Peter seems to think it doable, such that the citation would only in
> fact point to the original source (as in my first example above).
>
> > Not to say that MODS couldn't morph into this -- I haven't thought
> > about
> > that -- but it makes sense that you don't find it in MARC.
>
> Yes, it is indeed understandable why it's not in a library standard.
> As you also note, though, I could imagine it more comprehensively and
> broadly useful outside of personal bibliographic management and
> citation.
>
> Bruce
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options