Date could be parsed -- but I'm assuming that date will be placed in the
dateType data element so it isn't being carried in the subdocument but the
main document. That's one of the areas where I think the MARC record and
most citation records differ -- the MARc record has these two levels for a
citation (document and host document) and I'm not sure it's clear that's a
good idea. It is left over from library practice. The MODS record already
is more friendly to citations than the MARC record is in some ways, but it
does put a great deal of information under the "host" field and you have to
decide what is "host" and what is the item itself. So one question is: if
we put the date in the subdocument, does it also need to be in the document?
kc
At 10:59 AM 4/15/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Karen wrote :
> >5) The "text" data element (it might need another name) is a way to
>carry
> >to unparsed statement from the original metadata record when a
> >transformation is done from a citation format to MODS. It may be useful
>for
> >display even if it is successfully parsed into detailed elements, and
>it
> >may carry data that doesn't get into the subdocument data elements
>(such as
> >the date in the middle example).
>Why the date element couldn't be also parsed ?
>
>Yves
*********************************************
Karen Coyle [log in to unmask]
http://www.kcoyle.net
**********************************************
