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  August 2004

MODS August 2004

Subject:

MADS review

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:40:10 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (135 lines)

There was a question the other day about the status of MADS.  After
reviewing all of the suggestions and discussion on this list pertaining to
MADS, since the last draft, we have a few proposals and several
observations.

First, here is a list of changes that we propose for the next MADS draft.

1. Make all of the descriptors allow empty elements, so you can  use an
xlink attribute (URI) in lieu of a  value.

2. Replace <ref> with two elements: <retated type="earlier | later | parent
org | broader | narrower |other">  and <variant type="acronym | abbreviation
| translation | expansion | other">. Both will have xlink attribute.

3. Based on the list discussion pertaining to allowing extensibility of
enumerated lists while preserving interoperability, we propose to adopt
the suggestion to replace all enumerated lists such that the value is a
uri. Lists will be registered externally, with one list to be
distinguished as the "standard" list (which will initially contain the
current values) and a mechanism will be published so that extended or
private lists can be established. See message from Ray Denenberg of June
23, Subject "info URIs for metadata values".

We have the following questions and observations pertaining to suggestions
that we think need further discussion:

1. There has been a suggestion to parse dates so that birth and death dates
can be determined. One approach would be to use ISO 8601 and include a
slash (/) between the start and end date. A second  approach would be to use
a hyphen (-) instead, as prescribed by AACR2. A third approach is to
explicitly distinguish these as elements.

All three approaches present pros and cons, so this needs further
discussion.  If the first or second approach is adopted then there isn't any
change required to the schema (it would be addressed in the guidelines). The
third approach would not be compatible with MODS.

2. It was suggested that we look at EAC DTD for LEAF program and compare it
with MADS.  We haven't had an opportunity to do that (and in fact have not
been able to access the DTD). If anyone would like to do this analysis, we
would welcome it.

3. It was suggested that there be an authority attribute for 2nd level
elements (<name>,  <titleInfo>, <topic>, etc.).   It may not be obvious, but
all these elements already have an authority attribute, via attribute lists.

4. There were questions about intent of MADS examples and whether they
conform to the structure of MADS. We'll try to make the examples more
accurate. One question concerned the lack of an authority attribute in one
of the examples and the possible need to make this attribute required,
since otherwise the purpose of the record is questionable if it isn't
authoritative according to some authority. The example was supposed to
illustrate the case where some institution might want to control headings
locally. However, it probably would be better to make the authority
attribute required and use the value "local" when this is the case.

5  There was discussion of the relationship between MODS and MADS in terms
of the schema definitions.  There are structures in MADS that simply echo
structures in MODS and there were suggestions to develop some sort of type
library for defininitions common to MODS and MADS.  We intend to do this,
but only after the functionality of MADS is more stable; doing this now
would be a waste of effort. We failed to get across the point that the
offending structures are  temporary.

6.  There was discussion of the intent of MADS (browsable strings or term
searching). Our intent was to have a record format in XML that can carry
information about people, institutions, events, subjects, places, etc. One
need is that it be compatible with MARC because of the wealth of data that
already exists in library authority files. I could see, for instance,
using OAIBPH to harvest the data in authority files and have MADS as an
alternative for display of the record. Another need is to have it
compatible with MODS so that you can use them together, perhaps by just
providing a link from the MODS record to the MADS (or MARC) record and
bring in the data from that other source. It was pointed out that MADS
records could be used for term searching so that a smart system might be
able to differentiate 2 names that are the same based on other information
in the record, rather than require the unique browsable string to
differentiate. However, one person pointed out that in a large file with
thousands of records it would be difficult to find a brief display that
would make sense to the user if there are not browsable strings. An
additional suggestion was to include an unparsed element for "authorized
heading" that is separate from the parsed information needed for
searching.

These suggestions warrant further discussion. Again, we need to consider
what changes these other approaches would result in for MODS, since we
need to keep them compatible. MODS has become fairly widely used, so there
would be an impact on existing data.

7. There was a suggestion to carry date information without having to know
if it's part of the authorized heading. However it was pointed out that
you need to keep the date associated with the variant or authorized name
since a variant may include a different date from that in the heading.

8. It was suggested to use the ONIX approach for different forms of name
(e.g. name inverted, titlesbeforenames, etc.). This needs further
discussion since it would not be compatible with MODS, and it is unclear
if this much complexity is useful.

9. It was suggested that the schema require attributes authority (see also
above) and relatedType, and that the attribute values be controlled by the
schema. This might facilitate conversion to RDF, however having attribute
values controlled by the schema is not compatible with the suggestion
above to allow URIs for values.

10. There was a suggestion to add an attribute "authorities" to  a
collection as a shortcut to avoid having to define authorities for
individual records. However (if we understand the suggestion correctly)
this would make an individual record dependent on a collection, so that it
couldn't be used as a standalone record. That is, if you extract the record
from the collection it wouldn't have the authority.

11.  A completely alternative approach was suggested to get rid of ref and
refs and have primary and variant names at the same level; also to make
"temporal" a separate element with parsed dates for birth and death (see
above under 7 which points out a disadvantage of this). It isn't clear
whether this approach is so much better than the current one that it would
warrant the extensive changes that would be needed to MODS.

We would like a 2-week period to further discuss these before issuing the
next draft.

Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
^^  1st and Independence Ave. SE                          ^^
^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
^^  [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

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