Bill and Jenn,
I'm responding to the list rather than personally, but this really relates to the DLF Aquifer MODS guidelines.
I think this is an area where it's certainly useful to look forward and not feel constrained by the legacy of 500 notes in MARC records which serve different purposes. I can say that for American Memory, we have regretted that there wasn't an easy way to distinguish between 500 notes that would be useful for discovery and selection and ones that were more administrative or explanatory. You could imagine different indexing treatment and different ordering in a display. OAI harvesters have found the same problem and I know this is behind the wish expressed in the DLF Aquifer MODS Guidelines that notes such as "source of title" be excluded.
However, as a data provider, I do not want to *exclude* some notes from my MODS records because of current perceptions of requirements of DLF Aquifer. I want those records to be useful for others to develop services that may be built on different assumptions.
If the DFL Aquifer guidelines could recommend some usage of type values (see the list Rebecca pointed to) that would allow the sorts of note you would rather ignore for DLF Aquifer to be tagged in a consistent way, I can see that as advantageous. I certainly don't guarantee to be able to do it for LC's legacy records, but it seems like a productive direction.
Caroline Arms [log in to unmask]
Library of Congress
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/01/06 9:44 AM >>>
Yes, the mapping does put all 5XX fields in notes. There is a type
attribute to designate the note type. That is an uncontrolled list of note
types, but we have asked people to submit to us the note types they're
using so that others can use the same if needed and increase the chances
for interoperability. See:
The only note types we listed specifically in the mapping were those that
were being used here in digital projects at the time we developed
MODS: performers, venue, statement of responsibility. Hence, those are
what are transformed using the stylesheet (from 511, 518, 245$c
respectively). It seemed impossible to list everything since different
applications have different note types. But certainly any stylesheet could
take a different set of note types and transform them.
Please let us know if you want us to list additional note types in the
document cited above. We could go through all the note fields in MARC to
determine what we'd want to include, but had decided against that unless
people express the need for a particular type (since MODS is supposed to
be a simplified MARC). As for source of title, we could add that. Keep in
mind that now in MARC it's put into a 500 and not a special note field,
although if using AACR2 it should be preceded by "Title from..."
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Riley, Jenn wrote:
> Hi Amy-
> The division of information applying to the intellectual content versus
> the version of a resource is something we're going to be rethinking in
> the DLF Aquifer group that put together the DLF MODS Guidelines for
> Cultural Heritage Materials. We received many comments on how we
> presented this issue in the draft we released for review. So don't put
> too much weight on that specific recommendation right now.
> I think the other thing to remember is that the DLF guidelines are just
> one set of guidelines for MODS - they aren't appropriate for all MODS
> records in all contexts. It's absolutely valid and reasonable MODS to
> put this information in a <note> element, and (without checking the
> mapping online - bad Jenn!) I believe the MARC->MODS mapping on the MODS
> site would do exactly that.
> So the simple approach, using <note>, seems perfectly OK to me. Then
> again, I tend not to be too much of a stickler about things like this.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amy Rudersdorf
> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:38 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [MODS] Question: Source of title
> > Hello:
> > The following is a question from one of my colleagues. I'm
> > wondering if folks have comments/suggestions with regard to
> > it. (This is basically the same question I brought up at the
> > DLF Fall Forum Workshop in Charlottesville. Obviously, we're
> > still struggling with it.)
> > [start quote]
> > Because of our current metadata format and cataloging
> > application, we do not, in cataloging historical
> > photographs, enclose the title in square brackets when it is
> > devised by the cataloger or transcribed from a source other
> > than the photograph. We have therefore implemented a policy
> > of always including a note about the source of the title,
> > with the introductory wording, "Source of title: "
> > With the understanding that DLF guidelines recommend using
> > the <note> element only for information about the
> > intellectual content of the digital resource -- and not the
> > original resource -- I wonder if this source of title note
> > should therefore be entered in the <relatedItem> element, as follows:
> > <relatedItem type="original"><note displayLabel="Source of
> > title">Devised by cataloger.</note></relatedItem>
> > Or since many of these photographs would never have an item
> > level catalog record with a devised or transcribed title if a
> > digital surrogate had not been created, should this source of
> > title note be entered in the <note> element?
> > Or does it really matter?
> > [end quote]
> > Or...should this information go in <extension>?
> > Cheers,
> > Amy
> > --
> > -----------------------------------
> > Amy Rudersdorf
> > Digital Resources Librarian
> > Special Collections Research Center
> > North Carolina State University
> > email: [log in to unmask]
> > phone: 919.513.1188
> > -----------------------------------