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
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"
Likewise, I could do this:
<citation><biblioref linkend="smith1953a" unit="page" start="34"/>;
quoted in <biblioref linkend="jones2000c" unit="page"
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
> 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