Print

Print


It would not be a major change to add a relatedItem type "referencedBy" or
"isReferencedBy" or whatever we want to call it. In this new version 3.0
we are adding a few other related Item types that weren't covered by MODS.
Since there is a MARC equivalent as well, this would probably be useful.
As in a MARC record, one would assume that any list of sources where the
resource is cited may not be comprehensive, since you in most cases
wouldn't want to go back and update the record each time.

Would this be sufficient?

FYI: we plan to finalize this version this week. Yes, I know I keep saying
this and then something else comes up. We are just testing to see if we
can do the global subelements easily without major changes to the schema
or whether that will need to wait until a later version.

Rebecca

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Schupbach ,Mr William wrote:

> For this purpose I use MARC field 510.
>
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ecbdnot1.html#mrcb510
>
> William Schupbach
> Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, England
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Catalogue: http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Automatic digest processor
> Sent: 29 November 2003 05:00
> To: Recipients of MODS digests
> Subject: MODS Digest - 14 Nov 2003 to 28 Nov 2003 (#2003-93)
>
>
> There is one message totalling 27 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. referenced works?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:56:27 -0500
> From:    Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: referenced works?
>
> In a lot of formats -- Dublin Core, DocBook, etc. -- there is an
> element/attribute value called something like Is-Referenced-By.
> Example from DocBook:
>
> <biblioentry id="smith53>
>    <title>Title</title>
>    <author>
>      <surname>Smith</surname>
>    </author>
>    <bibliorelation type="isreferencedby"
> remap="jones99">p.37</bibliorelation>
> </biblioentry>
>
> I was just looking for this in MODS' relatedItem, and not seeing it or
> anything similar.  Am I missing something?
>
> Bruce