> So when to use <part> with relatedItem? I would say the case of the
> article within a larger work. This could be considered a separate
> intellectual entity that has its own identity. You would then
> designate the location within the larger work in related item using
> <part>. This is different than the issue which is a separate structural
> (i.e. physical) part.
>
> Does any of this make sense?

Yes, completely. But couldn't you also describe that article on its own,
using MODS? And if so, why wouldn't you want to provide the same
descriptive possibilities as you had when you were describing it as a
related item? All I'm saying is that there ought to be the same options no
matter how you choose to describe that article.

>
> As to the question of parsing the <extent> element under
> <physicalDescription>, we did consider that in the first version of MODS.
> But we were considering MODS a simplification of MARC so decided not to.
> (guess what, it's not so simple any more!) However, if that sort of detail
> is needed, we could reconsider what we might want to do to enhance that
> area.

I think that would be great. I cringe at the thought of making MODS more
complicated. I like its relative simplicity. However the parsing of
<extent> under <physicalDescription> does, in some ways make things easier
and not harder. It's difficult to get people who are not MARC catalogers to
concoct an extent statement without giving them lots of examples and
guidelines. Much easier to provide the framework that lets them choose the
appropriate unit and fill in a value. We can do this anyway, in an entry
form, but it's nice if the form reflects the underlying data structure.

Ruth Bogan