Print

Print


In a different post since it's off-topic of Ruth's questions...

Besides occurrence constraints and linking, which you mentioned,
another advantage of elements vs. element+attribute is enforcement of
valid content.  Authority attributes, code/text attributes, type on
<identifier>, each requires validation beyond that provided by a
schema-aware XML parser.  All the existing loosely-typed elements would
be well complemented by a set of more restrictive alternatives.  In
addition to <identifier type="..."> there could be <isbn>, <ean>, <uri>,
etc. with appropriate length and format constraints.  The old
<identifier> should stay for (1) compatibility (2) identifiers not
corresponding to a MARC field and (3) identifiers that are free form by
nature (like with type="stock number").  Similarly there could be, e.g.
<marcRelatorCode> and <marcRelatorText> along with <roleTerm
authority="...">, <marcGenre> along with <genre authority="...">, and so
forth.

--Andy

>>> [log in to unmask] 2004-01-22 11:55:45 >>>
Andy,

I agree that adding "type=main" is not a great solution. I've got only
limited experience with XML schema, but my impression is that if you
have a element that you wish to control (i.e. give a specific
minOccurs
to) or link to, then it needs to be distinguished at the element level
and not at the attribute level. If I understand that correctly, my
preference would be for there to be a <title> element and an
<otherTitle> element, and that the attributes be on <otherTitle> with
<title> being understood to be the main title (or the simplest case
thereof). If <title> could then be a minOccurs=1, maxOccurs=1 (yep,
the
default) then it would be quite easy to find the main title in a MODS
document, just in the same way that we all grab the 245 in MARC
records,
and editing software could at least attempt to enforce the wisdom that
every item really really really should have a title. Naturally, there
will be some violations of this rule, but I still think it's a good
one.

kc

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 04:59, Andrew E Switala wrote:
> Karen,
> It's convenient, IMHO, to have the most important use of <titleInfo>
be
> the simplest or default case, i.e. the main title of the work is in
an
> unqualified <titleInfo> while "extra" titles require setting the
type
> attribute.
>
> 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.
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------