Having seen no response to this I'm going to assume that everyone agrees,
that <url> and <identifier> should be at record level. If not, someone
please speak up, as we're trying to prepare a draft for review.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: [MODS] <url> and <identifier> in MADS
> As we're doing the finishing touches on a new version of MADS, I have a
> 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).