As we're doing the finishing touches on a new version of MADS, I have a
question.

On Nov. 24, Karen Coyle wrote:

"This isn't new, but I just noticed it in this version, but both the url
element and the identifier element are at a level where they can only
pertain to the authority element -- right? In essence, everything in the
record other than the authority element itself are ABOUT the authority
element. (uh oh, I think I see RDF in our future ;-). It seems that
there might be a need for a url or an identifier for other elements as
well, i.e. related or variant. And I'm just not sure what a URL for the
authority would be, so maybe I need an example of what you were thinking
of for this element."

In the latest version, we changed <url> and <identifier> to be part of the
descriptors group. That means that they could be used under <authority>,
<related>, and <variant>.

On further reflection, I think there are other approaches. In answer to
Karen's question, <identifier> could be used for an ISTC (International
Standard Text Code)-- applicable to a name/title (which would be in
<authority>) or an LCCN (to reference a MARC authority record). If we look
at how identifier is used in MODS, it could be used for various forms of
identifier (ISBN, ISSN, ISRC, etc.) and also would be used to identify a
MARC record (using LCCN) describing the same entity. If you want to link
from a particular element in MODS to an authority record (e.g. <name>),
you would use xlink as an attribute of that element. So in MADS, if the
identifier is for the whole record, i.e. whatever is being described under
<authority> we should use <identifier>, as we do in MODS. If we want an
identifier (e.g. LCCN) associated with <related> or <variant> to identify
another record, this also could be done using xlink, as we do in MODS. Or
are there other types of identifiers we would need to reference for
<related> or <variant>?

As for <url>, this was meant to contain a link to a person or
organization's web site, equivalent to 856 in MARC (defined in authorities
not too long ago). I see that also as applying to the record as a whole,
not to the authority, related or variant.

So my suggestion is to put these elements back where they were, namely as
"additional elements" (now we got rid of that wrapper).

Rebecca