On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:55, Ruth Bogan wrote:
> 1. For administrative reasons, we have chosen to designate a single
> primary title for each of our resources, and allow multiple alternate
> titles. That means that "title" can appear once, and "title" with
> type="alternative" can repeat. Apparently, there's a functional
> problem caused locally by not having a value for type with the
> nonrepeating "title" element in our configuration. Since the use of
> type is optional anyway, is there any reason not to have a type="main"
> or some similar term?

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.
> 2. It looks as if the relatedItem structure can be used to designate
> that a resource is a part of a collection or collections. It appears
> that type="host" might be the right choice for this. Is that how you
> see this? I'm asking because the term "host" makes us a bit uneasy.
I went back and looked at the MARC description of the 773 (which "host"
is derived from) and the 76x-77x's in general, and MARC designates these
as related *bibliographic* items. I don't know how important that is.
There is one example that looks like your need, however:

773 0#$tGilbert H. Grosvenor Collection of Photographs of the Alexander
Graham Bell family

So I suspect that collections could fit into it, assuming that the
example above is not for a printed item but for an archival collection.
I haven't actually seen it used this way in a MARC record, but I think
that's because very few libraries do item-level MARC cataloging for
archival materials, preferring EAD and Finding-Aids instead.

Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913