Yes, the church should be done as <subject><name>. In the library world, we make metadata records for names to give an authorized form (following a set of rules). So in this case we would give the church an authorized form of name, probably "Vang kirke" and it would be used as <subject><name>. In library catalogs, you would see names of churches considered as corporate bodies (although type is not required). As for the role "depicted", that is fine. We had a request a while back to define a term/code for that exact relationship in our MARC list for relators (which we often use in MODS for the <role> element. So if you look at the list at: http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html you will find that as a role term with the following definition: Depicted [dpc] Use for the person or group depicted or portrayed in a work, particularly in a work of art. If Vang is also a place name, you could include another subject for <topic>churches</topic><geographic>Vang</geographic>. I am assuming that you are not using some authoritative form of name for these (if so you would indicate the source with authority=""). We would expect these to be different subjects, so a <subject> wrapper around each string: <subject><name type="corporate"><namePart>Vang kirke</namePart><role><roleTerm type="text">depicted</roleTerm></role> </subject> <subject><topic>Churches</topic><geographic>Vang</geographic> </subject> (Note that this uses MODS 3.0; in MODS 2.1, it would be <role><text> as you indicated below). Rebecca On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Eskil H. Solvang wrote: > As part of an OAI data provider project, I'm converting photo gallery > metadata from a proprietary metadata format into MODS. So far everything > looks promising, except for a small detail related to the use of the > subject element. One of the metadata records describes a photograph of a > church named "Vang kirke" ("the church of Vang"), and this should somehow > be reflected in the <subject> element. My current proposal is: > > <subject> > <topic>church</topic> > <geographic>Vang</geographic> > </subject> > > But I'm wondering whether it's also appropriate to regard "Vang kirke" as > a <name>, or if this is misuse of the <name> element? In my opinion it is > a name, but at the same time I'm doubting since it doesn't fit into any of > the name type categories (personal, corporate, conference). > > The reason why I want to describe the church as a <name>, is that I want > to keep the connection between the name and the fact that it is depicted > on the photography (this connection is described in the original > metadata). My new proposal is: > > <subject> > <topic>church</topic> > <geographic>Vang</geographic> > <name> > <namePart>Vang kirke</namePart> > <role><text>Depicted</text></role> > </name> > </subject> > > Is it possible to do it this way, or is this way of using the name/role > elements wrong? I realize that the role - depicted - is a very passive > one, if hardly a role at all. If my proposal is incorrect (which I have a > feeling of), how could/should I describe this connection. > > All hints and tips are appreciated. Thanks in advance. > > > Sincerely yours, > Eskil H. Solvang, > Norwegian University of Science and Technology (http://www.ntnu.no) >