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  February 2006

MODS February 2006

Subject:

Re: Question: Source of title

From:

Caroline Arms <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:26:57 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

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:
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-notes.html 

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..."

Rebecca

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.
> :-)
> 
> Jenn   
> 
> > -----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
> > -----------------------------------
> > 
> 

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