On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 09:48, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> Can you give a marked up example Karen?  One of the nice things about
> the current situation is that you can have:
> <titleInfo>
>     <title>A Long Title that Could be Shortened</title>
>     <subTitle>Subtitle</subTitle>
> </titleInfo>
> <titleInfo type="abbreviated">
>     <title>A Long Title</title>
> </titleInfo>

I'm thinking along these lines:

Create a <title> complex element that has 
  <nonSort> [although below I'll talk about how I would rather see
nonSort handled]

Create a <titleOther> element that extends <title> and adds the
attributes "abbreviated", "translated", etc.

Then if there was a desire to make <title> a required element, that
could be done by changing the definition of modsType or someone could
extend modsType to make it more "strict" (as Andy has pointed out).

It probably ends up being 6 of one and half dozen of another, but for
some reason it feels cleaner to me this way.

As for nonSort, just to be contrary, THAT I would like to see as an
attribute. I'm uneasy with nonSort just floating around amid a bunch of
other elements. My definition would limit it to the beginning of the
string. So:

    <mainTitle nonSort="The ">Best of times</mainTitle>
    <subTitle nonSort="an ">essay on entertaining</subTitle>

This is all very debatable. Some folks want to do nonSort in the middle
of a string (and I'm making up all of these examples, so don't get too
hung up on them):

   <nonSort>an </nonSort>
   <nonSort> on </nonSort>

I'd rather see that as:
   <subTitle nonSort="an ">essay</subTitle>
   <subTitle nonSort=" on ">entertaining</subTitle>

although in fact I'd prefer that people not do nonSort designations
within an element. I think we get into all kinds of dangerous ground

Among the reasons that the free-floating nonSort worries me is that
implementations may not retain the spaces in the elements (whereas they
are more likely to in a quoted string), and I think it's easier to input
(just my gut). Note that a nonSort element is not always a full word and
doesn't always get spaces, such as in 17th and 18th century works in
French where the apostrophe was not used: Lhistoire.... In this case,
the nonSort is "L" and there are no spaces; or in Arabic, where the
nonSort is "al-", as in: al-ʻArabah al-dhahabīyah lā taṣʻad. 

I'm assuming of course that for display you are wanting to put the
nonSort back together with the title, so you'll get:
  The Best of times an essay on entertaining
(and depending on your rules, you may put punctuation between a title
and a subtitle -- I have no idea what people are doing about that. MARC
records include the punctuation in the data element.)

More on names:

> While we're at it, I've been thinking about name-markup a lot, because
> it's so critical for citations.  Leaving aside that I wish MODS used
> element names instead of attributes for family, given, etc., I do have
> a suggestion: an attribute to indicate abbreviation on the namePart
> element.  I also think element order is going to be important
> Examples:
> <name type="personal">
>     <namePart type="given">Jane</namePart>
>     <namePart abbrev="yes">Q</namePart>
>     <namePart type="family">Doe</namePart>
> </name>
> The Q above is of course commonly (in the U.S.) understood as a middle
> initial. 

I was about to suggest that you can consider a single letter or a letter
followed by a period to be an initial if that is important for your
processing, when I thought about "Wm.". In any case, I'm still not sure
what the extra mark-up is going to get you that you can't divine
algorithmically, which is how you would probably be arriving at the
coding to begin with.

> A corporate name:
> <name type="corporate">
>     <namePart abbrev="yes">FBI</namePart>
>     <namePart>Federal Bureau of Investigation</namePart>
> </name>

I think this is unclear -- you don't know if you have a name with two
parts - one that's abbreviated and one that isn't, i.e. 
  U. S. Department of Commerce
  <namePart abbrev="yes">U. S.</namepart>
  <namePart>Department of Commerce</namePart>

or two versions of the same name, as you have. This kind of situation is
better handled with authority records rather than in the bibliographic
record because there is a way to associated variations on a name. The
other option would be to have an attribute for "name variation", which
to me is clearer than having two name parts that may or may not
represent the whole name.

[Note: I have done a first pass at a version of the authority format in
what I hope is a MODS-compatible schema, and have given it to LC for
review. That might be a solution for some of the problems that are
coming up around names.]

> In the end, I suppose this is how I'd do things if I was designing a
> new schema:
> <creator role="editor">
>     <person ID="doej">
>       <name>
>         <termOfAddress>Sir</termOfAddress>
>         <given>John</given>
>         <other abbrev="yes">Q</other>
>         <articular>van</articular>
>         <family>Doe</family>
>         <termOfAddress>Duke of X</termOfAddress>
>         <full>Sir John Q. van Doe, Duke of X</full>
>       </name>
>       <note>some notes ...</note>
>     </person>
> </creator>
> The advantage is that role is separated from the person, and person
> from name, allowing additional elements to be wrapped in there as well
> that are apart from "names."  This is a bit beyond the realm of MODS,
> though.

Yes, but I like this structure. It gets role out of the name area. That
actually makes sense in a system with a separate authority file for
names because the same person (read: same name) will be in different
roles in different bibliographic records, but is always him/herself as a

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