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  January 2013

MODS January 2013

Subject:

Re: possible future changes to originInfo

From:

Jens Østergaard Petersen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:46:32 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (47 lines)

Rebecca,

Thank you for presenting these exciting ideas.

Please find some comments below.

Best,

Jens

On Jan 3, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Rebecca Guenther <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The MODS Editorial Committee is considering ways to change or enhance MODS to fix some of the problems with consistency that have been identified and to make it more compatible with the direction of the Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative (BIBFRAME) and RDA. One area of difficulty in the current and previous versions of MODS has been the originInfo element and its subelements. Problems that have been identified include the following:

Are there any initiatives directed towards transforming MODS to BIBFRAME, similar to those for MARCXML at <https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe>?

<snip />

> 5. Dates.
> There are a number of date types, e.g. dateIssued, dateCreated, dateValid,  dateOther (with uncontrolled type attribute.), etc. These need to be accommodated.

MODS generally disposes elements with variants using @type  except for the date elements which add up to a long list. Is it being considered to change these to <date type="issued">, <date type="created">, etc.? This would make searching simpler and editing records in a form-based editor easier.

<snip />

> 3. Place
> Place would be a subelement within providerEvent. Geographic under subject is another area that needs to be cleaned up for various reasons (for instance, should hierarchicalGeographic really be a separate element or should it just be a different form of geographic and use the same element?). At a later date it will be considered whether to 1) change place under providerEvent to geographic, or 2) change geographic under subject to place, or 3) to keep place in providerEvent, but taking the same definition as <geographic> (i.e. that it can be a controlled form of name).

The element subject/temporal should perhaps also be considered in connection with the date element(s), on the analogy of subject/geographic and place.

> 4. Unrelated elements. Take edition, issuance and frequency out of originInfo/providerEvent as separate top level elements.
> 
> 5. Dates.
> Define <date> under providerEvent; the type of date is implicit in the eventType used. That is, if the eventType is "published" (or "issued"-- these have been considered synonymous) the date is publication, the provider is publisher, the place is place of publication. There are some stray dates that aren't associated with places and providers generally (i.e. dateValid). For those not related to an event, <date> can be defined at the top level and used with the type attribute (uncontrolled list). This construct will also be used for other types of dates that aren't associated with a provider event.
> 
> To accommodate the need for both transcription (how the resource presents itself) and access, there could be a subelement providerStatement under providerEvent for the transcribed form of the whole statement, i.e. place, provider, date.

It is a good idea to separate the systematic, access-related, information from documentary information in this way. Is it being considered to add a similar element to cover the statement of responsibility? I believe the general practice is to enter such information in a <note type="statement of responsibility">, but is this satisfactory for such a key piece of information? Also, I wonder if the dissection of the title information into the various subelements of titileInfo always accounts fully for the presented title information?

I see a problem when a publication has several providers, each located in one or more places. How should place 1 be paired with publisher 1, and so on? Should not place be a subelement of provider, with providerEvent/provider/name and providerEvent/provider/place? The event is one (a cooperative publication), but I would argue that the provider is the entity which has one or more places, not the event. To put it differently: a book is published by a publisher which has a domicile; it is not published by publisher at some (variable) place. - The date is of course keyed to the event.

> The MODS Editorial Committee would like to hear comments on these proposed changes. They would be in a future major new version of MODS.
> 
> Rebecca
> Chair, MODS Editorial Committee
> Library of Congress

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

February 2020
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