Thank you for this feedback. Part of the problem in having "suggested
values" instead of an enumerated list, of course, is inconsistency. People
can use anything they want, but you are right, there is benefit in using a
controlled list for interoperability purposes. Our intent at the time (as
I recall and as I find in some early documentation) was to have the type
attribute under detail in the singular and the unit attribute as plural.
Rationale is that the detail is a generic "type" and unit is under extent,
which usually has a start and an end-- that suggests the plural.
As to the example that you mention with detail type=page number and extent
that has a start and no end, we need to fix that. I don't think the
type=page number makes sense, although we did use a real example at the
time. What you use in <part> depends on how your document is structured.
Originally <part> was included in MODS to be able to give a parsed
citation and it was only available under relatedItem with type="host". In
that case you would specify the volume and issue that the article appeared
in under <detail> (using <number>, <caption>, etc.). We later included
<part> at the MODS level to enable the description of parts of a whole. In
the case of a single page, I would recommend using extent with the start
and end (as the schema specifies, we would repeat the single page number
in <end>). If others have used <part> differently, please let us know.
We will correct the documentation. Thank you for bringing this to our
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Matthias Steffens wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm confused how to correctly mark up page information in MODS. My
> issue lies with the "unit" attribute that's supposed to indicate
> pages. While the MODS Schema says:
> <xsd:attribute name="unit">
> <xsd:documentation>suggested values: pages, minutes</xsd:documentation>
> the online documentation on the MODS web page is ambiguous whether
> unit="page" or unit="pages" should be used. This has caused
> confusion and interoperability problems between various tools that
> support MODS (such as Bibutils, Zotero and refbase).
> While <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-outline.html> says
> under "18. part/extent":
> Attribute: unit (suggested values: pages, minutes)
> the "Detailed Description of MODS Elements"
> (.../v3/mods-userguide-elements.html) states under "part/extent":
> unit - Suggested values include page, minute, etc.
> and it uses both, unit="page" and unit="pages", in its examples.
> The examples linked from the MODS main page all use unit="page".
> What is the official recommendation here?
> I'd appreciate if the MODS schema and web site would be consistent
> with this regard, this would greatly help MODS implementers to
> improve interoperability.
> Also, on a related issue, I was told that a record which covers only
> a single page should be marked up like this:
> <detail type="pages">
> i.e. use "part/detail/number" instead of "part/extent" with "start"
> and "end" tags having equal page values:
> <extent unit="pages">
> However, the MODS Schema contains this note:
> "A single page is indicated by presence of both 'start' and 'end'
> with same value."
> What is the correct way of marking up single-page items in MODS?
> Adding to the confusing, the MODS online documentation has this
> <detail type="page number">
> <extent unit="pages">
> which uses both of the above and uses a different type name. What
> type name is recommended for single-page items in MODS, type="page",
> type="pages" or type="page number"?
> While these sort of issues seem to be minor, the lack of a concise
> documentation makes implementation of MODS harder than it should be.
> Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
> Best regards, Matthias
> Matthias Steffens ---- www.refbase.net