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  January 2005

MODS January 2005

Subject:

Re: MODS part

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:33:48 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

I think that this is a reasonable compromise. What seems obvious is that
one person's whole will be someone else's part, and yet someone else's
part of a part. Allowing physical parts to be described either as
primary entries or as related entries is a necessity. I'm sure that some
users will want to express parts as a multi-level hierarchy, but there
are times when you really don't want the baggage of the whole thing.
(It's much like hierarchy in geography - should every place name begin
with "universe - earth - ..."?)

It's kind of a shame that we named it "part" -- I think that's why we
ended up confusing it with the "part" subfields of the title. Can the
documentation make this clear? I would tend to describe this as
referring to separate physical parts, but that doesn't really work for
electronic journals should someone catalog a single issue. Maybe it is
physical if it has a single link?

kc

Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:

>Now I'm going to review my recent thinking on the use of <part> having
>discussed this with various people and having read the recent messages.
>
>The way I see it there's a distinction between the use of titleInfo with
><title>, <partName>, and <partNumber> and the <part> that we're talking
>about. We've used the former in MARC (245$a, $p, $n) historically to
>indicate part names/numbers that are subordinate to the title. They are
>bibliographic units that are logical parts of the title. I see this as
>different from the situation we have with newspaper issues, in that an
>issue is a structual/physical part of the main bibliographic unit rather
>than an intellectual one. The use of title/partName/partNumber would be
>for a distinct intellectual item.
>
>Example: 245 00$aAnnual report of the Minister of Supply and Service
>Canada under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.$nPart
>II,$pLabour unions
>which in MODS would be:
><titleInfo><title>Annual report
>of the Minister...</title><partNumber>Part II</partNumber><partName>Labour
>unions</partName>
>
>For the issue of a newspaper I still think it would be better to define
><part> at the MODS level, rather than just under relatedItem. This would
>be for a physical rather than intellectual component of something. So in
>the case of the newspaper issue we might have:
><titleInfo><title>Washington observer</title></titleInfo>
><part><detail type=volume><number>1</number></detail>
>
>We would also have <originInfo><dateIssued> that might in cases of
>newspapers be the only enumeration.
>You would then have a relatedItem to the host title (the intellectual
>title) that could just be an identifier (e.g. ISSN) or whatever you want
>to include and optionally you could include that same title in the
>description of the issue (which I included above).
>
>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?
>
>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.
>
>Rebecca
>
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Andrew E Switala wrote:
>
>
>
>>1. Isn't this what <partNumber> and <partName> are for?
>>2. Making <part> a top-level MODS element still doesn't solve the
>>problem with <relatedItem> for cases other than 'type="host".'
>>
>>--Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>[log in to unmask] 01/27/05 10:26 AM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>We spent a long time a year or so ago defining elements for citations
>>and
>>ended up with an element <part> that was under <relatedItem>.
>>Currently,
>>all MODS elements are defined under <relatedItem>, but in addition
>><part>
>>is ONLY defined under relatedItem.
>>
>>The MODS guidelines say that <part> is limited to use for <relatedItem
>>type="host"> for generating citations about the location within a host
>>or
>>parent item (although this can't be enforced by the schema).
>>
>>There are some problems with this. One is that it breaks the content
>>model
>>for relatedItem where it brings in all MODS elements, since <part>
>>isn't a
>>top-level MODS element. The other is that, because MODS requires at
>>least
>>one element, at least one MODS element must be under <relatedItem>,
>>but
>>since <part> is not a MODS element you can't use <part> alone.
>>
>>We have a large initiative called the National Digital Newspaper
>>Program
>>to digitize newspaper pages from 1836-1923. We are planning the
>>architecture now and plan to use METS and MODS. There will be METS
>>documents for issues of newspapers with MODS metadata for the issue as
>>well as possibly for the pages (the pages will be detailed in the METS
>>structural map at least). There is a need to include information about
>>the
>>enumeration (volume, issue, etc.) about the particular issue being
>>digitized which is what is being described. It seems more intuitive in
>>this instance to do this at the MODS level rather than the related
>>item
>>level.
>>
>>So my proposal is to define <part> as a MODS element. The user could
>>choose whether to use it at the MODS level or related item level. It
>>would
>>provide more flexibility and would allow relatedItem to be recursive
>>and
>>include any MODS element. It would solve the problem of being required
>>to
>>have one MODS element in addition to <part>. And it wouldn't
>>invalidate
>>any existing records.
>>
>>Rebecca
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

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

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