LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  December 2005

MODS December 2005

Subject:

MODS search points

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:52:45 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (144 lines)

We would like to see developed a set of search points based on MODS.

In particular, this would be used when searching MODS records via SRU
(though not intended exclusively for this purpose), so in SRU parlance, this
would be a CQL context set (see "Additional Notes" below).

The SRU implementors will hold a meeting in March,  I would like to propose
(prior to that meeting) a draft set of bibliographic search points based on
MODS, and I'm asking this group (the MODS list) to help develop it.

To begin, I've listed a set of search points. The list is a first cut and
needs to be pruned, as I've included most everything. So  I would like to
ask those of you who might be willing to help on this: (1) which of these
search points are candidates for pruning, that is, they are less- (or not-)
likely to be searched; (2) which are most likely to be searched; (3) what
search points likely to be searched are missing. Please note that even
though I've probably included too many search points, I've also arbitrarily
excluded several, so I'm hoping that some of you will give this critical
review.

Thanks for your help.

Ray Denenberg

BEGIN LIST
------------------------------------------
title
title - abbreviated
title translated
title -alternative
title - uniform
title - sub
title - part number
name -personal
name corporate
name - conference
name - part
name - affiliation
name - role
resource type (enumerated)
genre (controlled)
place of origin (controlled)
publisher
date issued
date created
date captured
date valid
date modified
copyright date
edition
issuance (enumerated)
frequency
language (controlled)
physical form (controlled)
reformatting quality (enumerated)
internet media type
extent
digital origin (enumerated)
abstract
table of contents
target audience (controlled)
note
subject - topic
subject - geographic  (controlled)
subject - temporal
subject - title
subject - name
subject - cartographic scale
subject - cartographic projection
subject - cartographic coordinates
subject - occupation
classification (controlled)
identifier-hdl
identifier-doi
identifier-isbm
identifier-isrc
identifier-ismn
identifier-issn
physical location
location URL
access condition
part- detail - number
part- detail - caption
part- detail - title
part - extent - start
part - extent - end
part - extent - total
part - date
-----------------------------------------
END LIST

Additional Notes. (Which you don't have to read by which may be helpful.)

The SRU protocol specifications are available at  http://www.loc.gov/sru/;
for CQL see http://www.loc.gov/sru/cql/.

CQL calls search points "indexes", actually "abstract indexes" -- "abstract"
for two reasons: (1) There is no implementation implication -- support of a
search point does not necessarily require that you implement an index. (2)
The index does not necessarily correspond directly to an element in the
record.

In this case, each index *does* correspond to a MODS element, but the names
are different, deliberately so, in order to maintain this independence -- in
theory, these indexes could be used to search records other than MODS if
there is an appropriate mapping.  But in this case it should be clear for
each index what MODS element it corresponds to (if not, then the index is
poorly named).

Note also, these are *flat* indexes that do not directly reflect the xml
structure.

CQL indexes are analogous to Z39.50 Use attributes; see
http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/defns/bib1.html#use

The motivation for this effort is twofold:

(1) There are current projects where MODS records are being harvested (e.g.
via OAI) and the harvested records are then searched. For example see the
DLF Aquifer project (http://www.diglib.org/aquifer/).

(2) SRU/CQL has not really developed a coherent set of bibliographic search
points.

Some observations about point (2).
-    CQL has defined a "dublin core" index set.  It is useful for some
applications but of little or no value for bibliographic searching.
-  The Z39.50 bib-1 set is not a good place to start.  It began to grow
out-of-control a number of years ago because of some deficiencies in the
protocol and more particularly some of the implementations. We've addressed
these deficiencies in SRU/CQL.
- There is a Bath profile for CQL which specifies a number of bibliographic
indexes, but it doesn't seem rich enough.
- There is also in development a MARC index set - we think that a
bibliographic and a MARC index set will complement each other, the first is
abstract and the second is concrete.

Finally, the concept of an "index set" --  a set of related abstract indexes
(or seach points) -- actually has been generalized into the concept of a
"context set" in CQL, which is described at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/cql/index.html#context. A context set in
CQL is loosely analogous to a Z39.50 attribute set, and an index set would
be analogous to the set of Use attributes for an attribute set.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager