Geoff, your posting below indicates that you see metadata as an enforcement
mechanism for a particular philosophical view. I take a different approach:
I see metadata as an *enabling* tool. Providing more options allows users
to make their own choices (in this case making both vernacular and
transliteration data elements available, and either or both can be used).
The fact is that people using MARC *do* have both kinds of fields in their
records, so by not including them we run the risk of making MODS less
useful and therefore less used.

I do think that we will make the transition from transliteration to
vernacular in the upcoming decade, but I also think that we'll need some
time to make that transition both in terms of our systems and in terms of
user training. In the meanwhile, I prefer that our metadata allow for the
widest possible capabilities as we model new systems and test user response.


At 10:49 AM 11/1/2002 -0500, Geoff Mottram wrote:
> >There has been a bit of discussion on this list and we will consider the
> >changes suggested. These are: parsing names into family name and given
> >name, etc.; allowing for alternate graphics (although it is not clear that
> >this is necessary);
>Alternate graphics is so 1980's. You are either defining a next generation
>bibliographic standard or you are reimplementing MARC in XML. The latter has
>already been done with a schema and DTD available on the LC web site.  See:
>While the manner in which MODS is evolving is certainly in the spirit of an
>open community process, there is the danger of trying to appeal to everyone.
>An important design consideration within MODS is to simplify MARC, not
>reproduce it in XML form.
>Geoff Mottram
>Minaret Corp.
>[log in to unmask]

Karen Coyle           [log in to unmask]