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:

"Sally H. McCallum" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:26:50 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

Stephen,

That is what some systems do -- separate records when needed for the
authorized forms in the different language files.

MARC users have had long discussions of these issues in the past.  The
basic authority file model has been that the authorized form is unique
within an authority file -- the file against which it was created.  The
variants (refs) may be the same as a reference to another authorized form,
although they cannot be the same as an authorized form in the same file.

MARC long ago established a set of fields in which the authorized form from
another authority file might be added to a record, marked as such.  How
systems were to treat these forms, as sees (related) or see alsos
(variants) -- or something else special -- was not really predetermined.  A
system could choose.

In more recent discussion for expanding the capability to have multiple
"authorized forms" in one record the concept of the "context" for a form
was suggested, because it was recognized that there are many factors other
than language that define the structure of an authorized form -- cataloging
rules, language, transliteration, catalog users, and the particular file --
but that mixing the references together for each to make a "mudball" record
might not be so useful.

When MADS was developed, the additional authorized forms that are possible
in MARC were mapped to related references.  The file to which they belong
can be designated in an authority attribute, which is a like marking
context since a file has a defined context.  ( I am not going to go into
the  "but mine should not be 2nd class" business here as a library can move
any form they want to the "top" position.)

But also MADS does not preclude having multiple authorized forms if that is
the way you see the world.  An Authority attribute (context) for each can
be marked.  This is less consistant with current practices in the library
community, however.

Now this does not address Bruce's issue as he is not interested in the
authorized form concept.  MADS is flexible enough that he should be able to
do what he needs, but if good collocation is useful to his applications, he
might want to look into authorized forms, constructing the headings by his
own rules.  The apparent complexity of rules used by librarians is partly
due to the size of their files.  30 years ago LC has over 100 Hans
Meuller's in its catalog -- all different people  I hate to think how many
we have now.  At that time adding information to a name in a systematic way
to distinguish them was useful.  Perhaps we will find other routes to the
same end, as you have suggested, in the future.

Sally




At 11:48 AM 9/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>****************************************************
>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]
>

********************************************************
Sally H. McCallum, Chief, Network Development and
MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress
Washington, DC 20540   USA
[log in to unmask]    (Fax: 1-202-707 0115) (Voice: 1-202-707 5119)
********************************************************

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