Print

Print


Jenn,

Filling in behind Rebecca.  The MODS records currently harvestable from LC
are all mapped from MARC and the approach taken for one-for-one digital
reproductions in LC's catalog (and American Memory) is to describe the
original.  In many cases, the link provides access to more than one
digital manifestation, e.g., images at different resolutions, a book as
transcribed text and page images, or a sound recording in different
digital formats. We change manifestations available over time without
changing the record that provides access -- replacing old scans with
better ones, adding a new audio format, and so on.  This occurs
surprisingly often, and our records get picked up through OCLC and RLG and
used in libraries all over the world -- long before OAI.  There would be
no reasonable way to keep things synchronized.  We don't try and use the
same records to manage the digital files.

We think of it as a record for the intellectual work, with links to
digital and physical manifestations.

I might ask what the UIUC and Michigan harvesters find works best for
them as they build services.

   Caroline Arms                                    [log in to unmask]
   Library of Congress

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Riley, Jenn wrote:

> Hello all-
>
> I'm in the final stages of preparing a set of MODS records for a
> digitized slide collection
> <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/cushman/> for exposure via the
> Open Archives Initiative (OAI), and I need to make a final decision
> about how to represent the digitized item (or any of the 4 [sometimes 5]
> versions of it!), as opposed to the original analog item. The MODS
> records are not being converted from MARC - I'm converting them from a
> local metadata format.
>
> What seems to me to be the right thing to do is to have the MODS record
> describe a specific digitized version of the image that the <identifier
> type="uri"> in the MODS record points to. I'd then include a
> <relatedItem> area with a <physicalDescription> referencing the analog
> original. So the relevant parts of a record would look something like
> this:
>
> <!-- DRAFT!!! -->
> <physicalDescription>
>   <internetMediaType>image/jpeg</internetMediaType>
>   <digitalOrigin>reformatted digital</digitalOrigin>
>   <note>Original 35mm slide was digitized in 2003 as a TIFF image.
> Display versions in JPEG format in three sizes are available.</note>
> </physicalDescription>
> <identifier
> type="uri">http://purl.dlib.indiana.edu/iudl/archives/cushman/P10010</id
> entifier>
> <relatedItem type="otherFormat">
>   <physicalDescription>
>     <form authority="gmd">graphic</form>
>     <extent>1 slide : col. ; 35mm</extent>
>     <note>Original 35mm slide was digitized in 2003 as a TIFF image.
> Display versions in JPEG format in three sizes are available.</note>
>   </physicalDescription>
> </relatedItem>
>
> But most of the MODS records I see out there (mostly LC records exposed
> via OAI) don't take this approach. They generally have
> <physicalDescription> of the analog item, and contain an <identifier
> type="uri"> pointing to an online digitized version. I'm assuming this
> is because they're being created from source MARC records originally
> created for the analog original, then an 856 field was added when a
> digital version was created. But I could be wrong about that.
>
> So what is everyone else out there doing? If you had infinite time to
> tweak mappings to make MODS records look their "best," how would you
> represent an original analog vs. a digitized item?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jenn
>
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Main Library E170
> (812) 856-5759
> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>