MODS doesn't make the main entry/added entry distinction, so it's
100/700$a with $t. Yes, noone uses 100$t. It could be a name/uniform title
or a name/some other title. The project here is used relatedItem to do
sort of subrecords for constituent items within the larger item and would
like a way to bind together name and title outside of relatedItem, similar
to 700$a with $t.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Karen Coyle wrote:
> What would map to this field? It sounds like a 1xx with a $t (apologies
> to the non-librarians on the list -- I don't know another way to say
> this), but that is never used, as far as I know. Are you thinking of it
> as being for uniform titles? or?
> Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> >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
> 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