OK, I remember this now... the RefDB project. So the issue isn't support
for MODS v. qDC, it's what metadata is available for reuse in bibliographic
citations in other systems (e.g. endnote)? The complication for DSpace was
that since most institutions require depositors to supply the metadata,
it's unpredictable whether a given submission will have enough metadata to
generate a good citation, whether that metadata is in MODS or not. Which is
kind of the eternal problem...
At 09:53 AM 6/16/2004 -0800, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:47:52 -0400, "MacKenzie Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >DSpace, BTW, really needs to support MODS. Research tools without good
> > >bib metadata (and ultimately a way to integrate that into document
> > >creation) aren't very useful for this researcher ;-)
> > Interesting assertion. DSpace descriptive metadata was based on qualified
> > dublin core, and for the METS export in the new release (1.2, just
> > wrapping
> > up now) it will be encoded in MODS (thanks to a
> > qDC -> MODS mapping that Rebecca Guenther did). Does that count as
> > supporting MODS? If not, what would you consider as adequate support?
>Hi MacKenzie -- I sent you comments privately on this way back, and
>don't have access to them, but my criteria in general is to be able to
>have data encoded in sufficient detail to get formatted citations with
>xslt. This presumes support for structures such as MODS' "part" element
>or something equivalent.
>Also, stuff like parsed names (something I hope will be more
>comprehensively addressed in MADS), subtitles and such would be nice.
Associate Director for Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
[log in to unmask]