An example from my own collection:
<namePart type="given">R. W.</namePart>
<variant type="other" script="Latn">
What is lacking here? The problem, earlier, seemed to be that some OpenDocument users wanted a completely self-contained bibliographic record that could be formatted according to any style. Aside from that (the self-contained requirement), how is MADS inadequate?
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/20/05 1:46 PM >>>
On Feb 20, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> This shows exactly the problem I would like MADS (and I guess later
>> MODS) to solve :-)
> This is exactly what MADS does solve.
Not exactly; at least not the last I looked.
First, I should clarify and say that I would not put the two forms of
Boyle in a MODS record; I'd only ever put in the form that allowed me
to get the correct formatted output, whatever that may be.
As I explained earlier, the issue is really names in different scripts
(or perhaps names and pseudonyms).
With respect to my point about MADS and solving my bigger problems:
There's no way to encode names in MADS to be able reliably format a
name like J. Edgar Hoover; where you can easily handle not just one
representation (the full name), but also sort-order stuff like:
Hoover, J. Edgar.
Hoover, J. E.
Likewise, there's no way to unambiguously code a name like T. C. Boyle.
The reason is simple: MODS/MADS only allow distinctions between family
and given names. There no explicit coding that allows you distinguish
between "J" (a given initial that is of secondary importance) from
"Edgar" (a primary given name).
But I suppose we're getting off-topic. I'd be happy if we could settle
on a way to address my issue of multiple variants (and titles; I'm
running into refer journal article records from online databases that
try to fake this sort of markup by adding stuff like <i>some