Thomas: can you give us an example of the automatic transformations in other formats? What might the data look like that you are trying to transform?

Rebecca

-----Original Message-----
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Scheffler
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] how to mark "et al."

Am 26.12.2012 23:27, schrieb Guenther, Rebecca:
> The MODS Editorial Committee has discussed this request. It seems that 
> there are a few issues (correct me if I'm wrong): 1. Somehow marking 
> the record or names with "et al." to indicate that there is a longer 
> list we don't know about

Thank you for your response and yes that is exactly the point.

> The Editorial Committee didn't think that the usage attribute was the 
> proper place for this, because we would have to change its meaning.
> 
> The "et al." would be in the statement of responsibility (particularly 
> if cataloging rules were followed), thus indicating that there is a 
> longer list of names. In MODS that goes to note type="statement of 
> responsibility". Doesn't this help?
> 
> If there is reason to give an explicit indication about the missing 
> names, one could create a bogus name to be used in the <name> element, 
> e.g. <name><namePart>et al.</namePart></name>. You could also use the 
> <description> element under name to explain the situation.

This is where I don't feel the solution is right. I need an official suggestion how to mark entries as being "unknown" or "et al." for automatic transformations in other metadata formats that offer this description. Having this in prose somewhere in description would not fit that purpose as it is not machine readable. So yes, it should be attached to the name element somehow as this is where the roles are handled.

Of cause adding this two entries would change the usage attribute but it would just add two more valid values. So there is no incompatible change here. In my opinion the definition "Use of the name in the resource description." is generic enough to handle these cases, too.

kind regards,

Thomas Scheffler

> -----Original Message----- From: Metadata Object Description Schema 
> List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Scheffler
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:19 AM To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [MODS] how to mark "et al."
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I wonder what is the best solution to mark a mods:name being the "et 
> al." part in a list of persons. The way I see it, the "usage"
> attribute should be the best place. There is already a value "primary" 
> defined to mark the main author.
> 
> Are there any known mods profiles that mark mods:name entries as "et 
> al."? If not I would like to suggest that usage="et al." marks a 
> undefined list of names, where the real name of persons/corporations 
> could not, would not or can not be resolved. Leaving an entry fully 
> uncommented may result in loosing semantics in further transformation 
> processes or software that handle these cases.
> 
> This problem is similar to unknown persons where you have some 
> information for the description or affiliation. I would suggest that 
> these names should be marked as usage="unknown".
> 
> I am looking forward for any comments on this matter.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Thomas Scheffler