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  September 2004

MODS September 2004

Subject:

Re: mods:name is broken

From:

Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:48:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

It seems clear from Rebecca's fourth point that the MADS record is intended
to have an authorizing function--i.e., it makes an essential distinction
between an authorized <name> form and variants, which go into <ref> tags.
The whole point is to label the two forms as functionally distinct, not
equivalent. The fact that different users or different systems may prefer
different forms of names has led librarians to model methods to link
between separate authority files, so that the French or Japanese authorized
name form for an identified entity in a French or Japanese authority file
can be found from the English authority record in its file, which in turn
is linked to bib records to which that entity is related.

So, from the perspective of the AACR/MARC model that underlies MODS/MADS
and current library thinking and as an alternative to Rebecca's point 5,
developers who want to be able to switch between forms of name for
presentation could be considering having multiple MADS files, one for each
authorized <name> form needed, with each MADS record having its appropriate
array of <ref> variants (e.g., a kana variant for the kanji in Japanese)
and with all MADS records for the same entity linked together some way or
other.

Stephen

At 09:26 AM 9/8/2004, you wrote:
>I would like to make a few general points about MADS in response to
>various messages that have gone out on the list.
>
>1. There is no assumption that we have to have round-trip mapping between
>MARC authorities and MADS and back. As with MODS, the information that
>doesn't map well probably won't be lost, but some of the specificity in
>coding might, because MADS is a subset and derivative of MARC. If you want
>something in XML that is fully round-trippable, use MARCXML.
>
>2. In using the tag <name> we were grouping together various entities that
>had similar characteristics, that is, people, organizations, and events.
>We hadn't come up with a better word. I have heard many argue that they
>don't care what sort of name/entity it is (i.e. person or organization),
>that they should be all grouped together. Thus we used <name> in MADS as
>an entity described in the record that has a name (person, organization or
>event) and in MODS as an entity used in the record that has a name and is
>associated with the work in some way.
>
>3. We specifically didn't want to use <contributor> in either MODS or MADS
>because its definition would conflict with the Dublin Core definition. In
>Dublin Core, a contributor is defined as "An entity responsible for making
>contributions to the content of the resource." Because there is also a DC
>element Creator defined in terms of primary contributions to the resource,
>it has been used for those entities playing a secondary role. So we did
>not want to be making the distinction between primary and secondary role,
>nor did we want to limit it to contributions to the content of the
>resources, since there may be other roles that an entity plays where we
>want to give access from a person/organization's name. So we wanted
>something more neutral. Thus <name>. Maybe there's a better tag, but we
>didn't come up with one.
>
>4. In terms of the necessity to be using AACR2 or some other body of
>cataloging rules, what we wanted to bring that is inherited from rules is
>the notion that there is an authoritative form of the name that is chosen
>for some reason (maybe because of a body of rules, maybe because of local
>convention, etc.) and other alternative forms are given as variants. The
>institution creating the record could choose an English form in Roman
>script or a Russian form in Cyrillic script; this would be indicated by
>the language attribute on <name> under either <authority> or <ref>. It is
>also possible that another institution could create a MADS record for what
>is the alternate form in the other record. The language attribute would
>distinguish them and xlink could be used to point from one to the other
>(as a related record).
>
>5. In the MODS record, xlink could be used to point to the MADS record,
>which includes the variant forms of the name and other information
>identifying the entity. You could use this MADS record in various ways.
>For instance, the MODS <name> may or may not have additional elements; it
>could have just xlink and then your system could display whatever form you
>want (for example, the variant with lang="fre" if you wanted to display
>the French).
>
>I'll try to address some of the specific points raised in the latest
>flurry in further messages.
>
>Rebecca
>
>On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Andrew E Switala wrote:
>
> > >>> [log in to unmask] 09/06/04 4:52 PM >>>
> > > It should be possible to xlink the MODS  author/creator/contributor to
> > > its MADS authority file.  Strictly speaking, you cannot do this now
> > > because while role indicates a relationship between an entity and the
> > > work in question (and so is contextual), mods:name wrongly assumes
> > that
> > > role is internal to that entity.  This is going to be a mess as a
> > > consequence.
> >
> >     Cannot do this?  I've been doing it since before MADS (with MODS
> > pseudo-authority records).  What's the problem with:
> > <mods>
> >    ...
> >    <name xlink:href="auth.xml#smith.john">
> >        <role>
> >            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
> >        </role>
> >    </name>
> > ...
> > </mods>
> > In an authority record, by my understanding, <role> should only appear
> > in name/title combinations, where there *is* a context for the role.  An
> > authority record representing a person would not have <role>.
> >
> > For the case of multiple forms of the same name on the same work, that
> > sounds like a job for <displayForm>:
> > <mods>
> > ...
> >     <name xlink:href="auth.xml#ichiro.suzuki">
> >         <displayForm>Ichiro Suzuki/ $BNkLZ (B< $B0lO) (B</displayForm>
> >      </name>
> > ...
> > </mods>
> > The parsed forms of the name, in both scripts, would be in the MADS
> > record, one in <authority> and one in a <variant>.
> >
> > --Andy
> >

****************************************************
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coordinator
Database Management Section Head
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

November 2022
October 2022
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