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  July 2008

MODS July 2008

Subject:

Re: uniform titles in mods

From:

Jon Stroop <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:13:47 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

Two IDs with the same value renders the document invalid (as it should), 
and the schema doesn't allow for IDREFs (and this seems like an 
inappropriate use of xlink:href to me).  Is this something that is 
planned for a future version?  Also, linking one node TO the other 
implies an unintended hierarchy, which I don't think one would always 
want to do (though perhaps with name/title it's OK).

I think what we really need is some way to simply provide elements with 
a common key.  As I mentioned in my last message, a keying facility 
would also be useful for replicating the use of MARC 880 fields.
-Jon

Jon Stroop
Metadata Analyst
C-17-D2 Firestone Library
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (609)258-0059
Fax: (609)258-0441

http://diglib.princeton.edu
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead



Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> Jenn:
>
> This is a good question. We have discussed the situation with name/title
> headings here and have wondered whether there is a need to make any
> changes for this sort of thing. We had intended that the uniform title be
> in <title type="uniform">, and you are correct that this doesn't
> explicitly link it to a particular name. We probably need to analyze some
> examples to see where this won't work. In some cases when you need to link
> the name and the uniform title, they are cases of related items (e.g.
> constituents) where they get linked because they are in the same
> relatedItem container. But there may be other cases where this doesn't
> suffice, so some other mechanism perhaps resulting in a change to MODS
> could be considered.  The intention was NOT to put the name in title
> type=uniform. Someone mentioned the use of xlink; the general linking
> mechanism in MODS would be use of the ID attribute (i.e. if 2 elements
> have the same ID value they are linked). That could be used in the
> meanwhile while we analyze this situation with more examples.
>
> It would be interesting to hear from others whether they have had a
> similar problem.
>
> Rebecca
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^  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 Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Riley, Jenn wrote:
>
>   
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'm having trouble figuring out how to encode a Uniform Title in a
>> MODS record. While some Uniform Titles (e.g., for the Bible) only have
>> a title component, most have both a name and title components, with
>> the title not making sense without the name. This is common for music.
>>
>> This is what a sample MARC name-title authority record would show:
>>
>> 100 10 |a Beethoven, Ludwig van, |d 1770-1827. |t Symphonies, |n no.
>> 5, op. 67, |r C minor
>>
>> And this is how the UT would appear in a MARC bibliographic record:
>>
>> 100     1_ |a Beethoven, Ludwig van, |d 1770-1827.
>> 240     10 |a Symphonies, |n no. 5, op. 67, |r C minor
>>
>> The full UT is split across the 100/240 pair. For a MODS record, one
>> would think Beethoven would go in <name> and Symphonies... in
>> <titleInfo type="uniform">. But how is the connection between the name
>> and the title parts of the full UT made in the MODS record? In MODS,
>> lists all the contributors in <name> elements, whereas in MARC you
>> only have one 100 field - other names are in 7xx fields.
>>
>> I'm not advocating MODS adopt the concept of main entry, but to use
>> the UT effectively (which presumably is a goal of MODS since
>> type="uniform" is defined for <titleInfo>) there needs to be *some*
>> way to connect the right name with the UT. I'm very uncomfortable with
>> the idea of including the name as part of the <titleInfo
>> type="uniform"> - is that what is intended? The MARC to MODS mapping
>> seems to support this not being the right thing to do. At
>> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-mapping.html>, it just pulls
>> in 240 data into <titleInfo> - it doesn't include data from the 100.
>> But what other options are there?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jenn
>>
>> ========================
>> Jenn Riley
>> Metadata Librarian
>> Digital Library Program
>> Indiana University - Bloomington
>> Wells Library W501
>> (812) 856-5759
>> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>>
>> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>>
>>     

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

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