The terms in Appendix J of RDA have been entered into the Metadata Registry:
Because they each have a unique identifier, you could use them
unambiguously (if not 'legally') in a MODS record. The difficulty will
be that they have implied in them the FRBR levels (work, expression,
etc.), but you could probably decide to stick to manifestation as a safe
choice. I guess that would have to imply that you are recording a
manifestation-to-manifestation relationship. Where I think things might
break down will be in the lack of identifiers for the bibliographic
items, so it will be hard to get a good fix on the reciprocity in a
system unless you use system numbers. If you try this out, let us know
how it works.
Rhonda Marker wrote:
> This is not the only case in which the relatedItem type vocabulary is
> frustratingly limited. The MARC origins of MODS are weighing us down.
> (Never mind-- that's just a splinter in my finger so to speak, not the
> main point here.)
> I'd like to see more explicit reciprocity in the type vocabulary when
> it is warranted, e.g. "reviewOf" and "ReviewIn". I'd also like to see
> a more elastic registry of <relatedItem> type values so that we don't
> have to move heaven and earth to apply the element to fit our needs.
> To begin with I'd like to see MODS populate the type vocabulary for
> this element with the relationship designators found in the RDA draft,
> Appendix J.
> Rhonda Marker
> Repository Collection Manager
> Scholarly Communication Center / Alexander Library
> Rutgers University Libraries
> ArjanTh wrote:
>> Dear MODS users,
>> The Dutch scientific institutions – united in Surfshare (the
>> successor of
>> DAREnet) – have decided to use MODS in the description of objects in
>> repositories. The main reason to do so is the higher granularity MODS
>> to its users.
>> For most type of documents, MODS is providing us with nice examples
>> in the
>> “Sample MODS Version 3 XML Documents”, available at:
>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-guidance.html. Unfortunately, no
>> example has been given on how to handle with ‘book reviews’.
>> Of course, others have pointed out this problem as well (see the
>> on the MODS forum). But pointing out the problem will not
>> automatically lead
>> to a final solution. In November 2007, Jenn Riley has started the
>> discussion on this subjects and Joe Altimus has made good suggestions to
>> overcome the problems (as agreed to by Rebecca Guenther).
>> Meanwhile, workarounds are being developed at several places to
>> create book
>> review descriptions in MODS. This is understandable, but we don’t
>> think this
>> is a welcome development.
>> In Europe (the DRIVER project) and more specifically in the
>> Netherlands, we
>> need to find a way to handle ‘book reviews’ as soon as possible. The
>> Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (the maintainer of the service
>> 'NARCIS', www.narcis.info) proposes to introduce the new type value
>> "reviewOf" for 'relatedItem'. [ relatedItem type="reviewOf"> ].
>> This solution is quite similar to the one explained by Joe Altimus in
>> November 2007. In Europe it is supported by Benoît Pauwels of the Free
>> University of Brussels.
>> With this new type value "reviewOf" it will be clear to everyone how to
>> create book review descriptions in MODS and it will stop the
>> development of workarounds. Besides, we think this proposal is rather
>> easy to implement.
>> Furthermore, it would we helpful when the 'book review' - after the
>> of this proposal - will be introduced in the “Sample MODS Version 3 XML
>> Arjan Hogenaar
>> Arjan Hogenaar
>> Research Information
>> Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
>> Kloveniersburgwal 29, Amsterdam
>> P.O. Box 19121, 1000 GC Amsterdam
>> T.: +31 (0)20-4628641
>> W: www.knaw.nl
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet