Yes, it is intended to be a "parent". I can't remember why we didn't call
it that but I do remember debating it. We considered what is in 772 the
same type of relationship (a parent, or host, although for a
supplement). I think we considered host to have fewer other implications,
but maybe it wasn't the most obvious choice.

If you look at the MODS guidelines, which gives further information about
application, it says under relatedItem type:

"host - Information concerning a host or parent resource for the resource
described; this may be a parent collection (Equivalent to MARC 21 fields
760, 772, 773)."

It is always a challenge to find the right word that expresses what the
element is intended to contain; this is why we put a lot of effort into
the guidelines (


> Ruth,
> In the MARC to MODS mapping on the website, both 772 "supplement
> parent" and 773 "host item" map to <relatedItem type="host">, suggesting
> that "host" in MODS has broader meaning that the word might imply.
> --Andy
> >>> [log in to unmask] 2004-01-21 17:01:03 >>>
> Ruth, I too like the idea of there being a designated "main" title,
> primarily because the main title is often a kind of identifier for the
> item (along with things like author/date). I think of the "main" title
> as being close to the "work" concept in ISBD and FRBR, and definitely
> needed to identify the work.