Print

Print


It certainly could happen that the date of the article is different from
the date of the journal in which it was published. This might be one
reason to keep both dates. So the date in the relatedItem type="host"
refers to the date of the issue in which it appeared, but the main
description would include the date of the article itself if one appeared
or was available. Since date in either case is not required in MODS, one
or the other could be left out if it's redundant.

Rebecca

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Suzanne Pilsk wrote:

> Apparently, I am always in a bit of a state of confusion, but, I will ask
> anyway...
>
> What if the item is an article that has a specific date that is not the
> same as the host item?  I would want the date, for citation reasons, of the
> item and the date of the host -
>
> Article is dated Feb. 4, 2003 - published in the Journal dated March 2003.
>
> I would need the date of the article in the mods record for the article and
> in the relatedItem field where I point to the host journal the date of the
> entire journal.
>
> Is this what is being discussed in this thread?
>
> Suzanne
>
> Suzanne C. Pilsk
> Cataloging Services
> Smithsonian Institution Libraries
> PO Box 37012
> Natural History Building, Room 30- MRC 0154
> Washington, DC 20013-7012
> [log in to unmask]
> 202-357-3161
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 04/15/03 10:01AM >>>
> 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
> **********************************************
>