On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 11:57  AM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> At 08:30 AM 4/29/2003 -0400, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> Why the following?
>> <name type="conference">
>> <namePart>International Workshop on Plasma-Based Ion Implantation
>> (1993: University of Wisconsin--Madison)</namePart>
>> </name>
>> I see this a lot with these example records, and I assume they're a
>> holdover from MARC practices, but isn't the above title mixing in
>> non-title data (date and place) that should go elsewhere?  And
>> shouldn't the MODS user guide reflect best practices, rather than
>> repeat these errors?
> Actually, the date and place are often considered part of the name of
> the
> conference. Not always, but often. The date of publication of the
> proceedings still goes into the date field -- that could be different
> from
> the date of the conference itself. And the place of publication still
> goes
> into the place of publication field. So when ACM publishes conference
> proceedings, the publisher is ACM, the place of publication is New
> York,
> yet the conference may have taken place in Peoria a year earlier. The
> title
> on the conference proceedings will read something like: 5th conference
> on
> wombats, January, 2003, Peoria.

OK, I see this....sort of.  But I still think it's more logical that a
conference location be listed in a different element.  Likewise,
consider a similar example of a public performance; let's say a speech.
  Surely the location should be recorded, but should it be in the title
or the name?

>> Three other examples:
>> <titleInfo>
>> <title>Oklahoma [sound recording] ; Carousel ; South Pacific</title>
>> </titleInfo>
>> <name type="conference">
>> <namePart>Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920)</namePart>
>> </name>
>> <titleInfo>
>> <title>Portals to the world</title>
>> <partName>Selected Internet resources</partName>
>> <partName>Andorra [electronic resource]</partName>
>> </titleInfo>
> Odd though it seems, these are not incorrect. It really depends on what
> title is on the item you are creating metadata for.

But in the last example, are you telling me "[electronic resource]" is
in the title itself?  Or is this -- as I assume -- simply a rather
inelegant way to attach metadata about medium to the record?

Likewise, I'm pretty sure the title of Oklahoma is just, well,

Beyond the question of basic logic (does it make any sense to include
metadata about medium in the title?), it also presents difficulties
when dealing with bibliographic formatting.  I regularly have to edit
records imported from MARC for precisely this reason.

I have less of a problem, BTW, with the Paris Peace Conference example.