A project here at LC wants to use the name/title combination in MODS that
we have defined for MADS. Right now, we map 700/710/711 with $t to related
item with <name><titleInfo>. This is because we use that combination in
cases where the work contains another work, so in MODS is considered a
related item with type=constituent. This project wants the flexibility to
give a name/title combination at the higher level of the MODS record, not
as a sort of subrecord under relatedItem. The only way now to bind
together a name and title is under relatedItem, which also could have a
lot of additional information. The name/title combination may or may not
be an authoritative heading.

MADS has a nameTitle for this sort of construct, where you would have an
authoritative heading for that combination. We did that because we wanted
to allow for only one heading type under <authority>. So it allows for
more consistency between MODS and MADS to have this construct in MODS as
well. The other advantage is that one could then reference the record for
this name/title combination in an authority file (MARC or MADS), as we do
for other authoritative headings in MODS records, by just using a link to
a name/title record. You couldn't really do this if it's under relatedItem
since name and title are not bound together there since there would
probably be additional elements.

Is there any harm in allowing for this?

If everyone agrees that this is a good idea, we would propose putting it
into MODS version 3.1, which we will be issuing to go with MADS. This
revision is mostly structural with a few corrections and a few additions.
Nothing that changes would result in invalidating any existing records,
but would include some enhancements. So newer instances could take
advantage of some of the enhancements, while older ones would still be
valid.

Rebecca