On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Eric Robinson wrote:

> In trying to crosswalk DC to MODS, several elements of DC (Source and
> Rights) have come up as questions as to where they would go exactly in
> MODS.
> For DC.Source, with a definition of 'a resource from which the present
> resource is derived', we began to look at relatedItem as the element to
> assign Source to. But without a type = 'derivative', we are unsure.
> How have others assigned Source to MODS?

relatedItem type="original"
That is essentially the same intended meaning as the Dublin Core element
(although I know people have used it in other ways).

> DC.Rights is similar; we simply want to be able to add a copyright
> statement, but the types 'useAndReproduction' and 'restirictionAccess'
> both seem to too narrow in scope within <accessCondition>.
> How have others assigned Rights to MODS?

Yes, in this case MODS is more granular than Dublin Core, since you can
specify a type of rights statement. Just mapping to <accessCondition>
without a type would be fine (the type attribute is not required).

The mapping to simple Dublin Core is at:
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/dcsimple-mods.html

We plan to do a mapping to qualified DC as well.

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] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


> Thanks,
> Eric Robinson
>