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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  June 2004

MODS June 2004

Subject:

Re: MADS examples

From:

Barbara B Tillett <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:03:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

And don't forget that there are dates associated with some variant forms
of name that were attributed in the past and later found to be erroneous
or questionable, so a peron may have various dates with variant names
over time - need to keep the dates associated with the variant name, not
just with the "person" - Barbara

Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20540-4305
U.S.A.

tel.: +1 (202) 707-4714
fax: +1 (202) 707-6629
email: [log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 06/11/04 3:23 PM >>>
Would generating browsable forms from parsed components mean that the
analyzable information related to a person's name that could be tagged
in
MADS would be limited to elements that are desired for a fixed browsable
string? For example, there are many names for which a date becomes known
which are already authorized without a date. In such cases, would there
be
a restriction on putting dates in a "dates" part of the name data
cluster?
Would there be a need for a separate "dates not in heading" dates field?
It
might be simpler to have an unparsed field for "authorized heading" for
browsing use, separate from the parsed set of name parts needed for
searching and other kinds of manipulation. Of course, this only matters
if
the headings in the file are supposed to be consistent with the forms in
external authorizing files (e.g., NAF). If the MADS headings only
represent
entities in a particular file of content object records that they're
linked
to, updating the heading form with new data ceases to be an issue.

As for searching in the latter scenario, I'm assuming that any content
object file that has been linked to a MADS file would route searches of
terms defined in MADS first to the MADS records, and retrieve only them.
Searching with a common term could recall lots of MADS records, but
assuming one could search "joyce" for example as a "family name," I
doubt
the problem would be worse than a comparable browse search in most
cases,
and the possibilities for search refinement and sorting alternatives
with
parsed data elements from the MADS record would be greater. Once the
desired entity or concept has been selected from among the returned MADS
records, then the MADS record ID is used to retrieve the corresponding
content objects. This points up the importance for this scenario of
being
able to tell from the MADS record whether one has found the name or work
or
topical concept which one is seeking before moving on to the content
objects. The disadvantage would be having to take at least two steps to
get
to the content objects. The advantage would be more precise content
object
retrieval, and not having to create unique, structured heading forms to
differentiate entities. Unique record IDs and unique, searchable,
expressive MADS records would suffice, and would probably be much easier
to
create than MARC AACR and LCSH authorities.

So again, my basic question is--what needs is MADS intended to serve?
The
MARC Authorities format as it's been applied is focused more on
browsable
heading and reference forms, and less on clearly identifying and
enabling
complex searching of entities and concepts; but the latter may be more
important in the MODS environment where MADS is expected to operate, and
the former less important. The greater the variety of uses envisioned
for
it, the more complex the structural requirements of the schema will be
to
allow for different and possibly conflicting applications.

Stephen

At 10:14 AM 6/11/2004, you wrote:
>On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 09:01, Stephen Hearn wrote:
> > If we don't care about browsable lists
> > anymore, then we don't need carefully structured heading strings.
>
>I'd say that we don't need to carry those "browse" headings as fields
in
>our records, but we should be able to generate them (easily, I'd say)
>from marked-up forms. So
> <name>
> <forenames>John James</forenames>
> <familyName>Smith</familyName>
> </name>
>
>Easily becomes:
> Smith, John James
>in a browse list.
>
>BTW, ONIX has a variety of name forms defined that seem to meet some of
>these needs:
>
>PersonName - the name in normal order: James J. Johnson III
>PersonNameInverted - the name in sort order: Johnson, James J., III
>
>Then it has a 7 part name sequence:
>
>TitlesBeforeNames - i.e. Sir
>NamesBeforeKey - before the key name, i.e. any forenames: James J.
(note
>that this assumes that the group of forenames will always be treated as
>a single unit -- there is no attempt to break this down further)
>PrefixToKey - i.e. van
>KeyNames - those names usually used to sort by: Garcia Marquez, or
>Madonna (This is a nifty solution for the one-word names)
>SuffixToKey - i.e. Jr., III
>LettersAfterNames - i.e. Ph.D.
>
>If you have the coded 7-part name, you do not need either for the first
>two (person name and person name inverted) because you can generate
>them. Then again, if you receive names as whole strings and don't have
>the means to accurately parse them, you can use the fields that carry
>full names. They are less flexible, but they should always result in a
>user-friendly display.
>
> > I can
> > imaging a file of MADS records which would generate responses to a
search
> > of discrete elements associated with an author. Multiple MADS
records might
> > have identical "headings" or display forms, but contain enough
additional
> > information in the MADS record to distinguish each author. By
linking bib
> > record name elements to the correct MADS records, one could have
retrieval
> > by individual authors without having individuated author headings.
>
>It sounds like you are suggesting that we use info in the record to
>distinguish authors, rather than forcing the headings to be unique.
This
>could facilitate dialogues like:
>
>"Do you want James Joyce, who wrote Ulysses, or are you looking for
>Joyce James, the cookbook author?"
>
>The trick here would be finding a very brief display of the data from
>the record that could work when the user has typed in "Joyce" and
>retrieves a number (in many library catalogs, that means thousands) of
>entries.
>
>kc
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------
>Karen Coyle
>Digital Library Specialist
>http://www.kcoyle.net
>Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
>--------------------------------------

****************************************************
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coordinator
Projects, Data and Sciences Team Leader
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library Voice: 612-625-2328
309 19th Avenue South Fax: 612-625-3428
Minneapolis, MN 55455 E-mail: [log in to unmask]

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

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