I never got Karen's response quoted here, but I did want to say that making minor adjustments to the u.t. won't be sufficient to FRBRize MODS. I would think that in a FRBR context the Titleinfo tag for the original work would be in a separate element ... <work> <Titleinfo> ... for HP & the Prisoner of Azkaban </work> <manifestation> <Titleinfo .. for Harry Potter y el Prisonero de Azkaban <Titleinfo ... for the u.t. string if necessary </manifestation> But I'll confess I'm not up on proposed solutions for FRBR. Dick Thaxter On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Mike Rylander wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:17:16 -0800, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Mike Rylander wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:54:31 -0500, Dick Thaxter <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>MODS folks, > > >> > > >> What I think is missing from this conversation is an understanding of > > >>what a uniform title is designed to do in catalogs that follow AACR or > > >>similar rules. It is a device that tacks on any number of elements in > > >>order to coerce an unchaotic arrangement in what can be very long listings > > >>of similar and derivative works. My own feeling is that it's unwise to > > >>pick out language as one of these elements and treat it as not part of > > >>that human-readable string that comprises the u.t. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >I don't want to treat $l as "not part of that human-readable string", > > >I just want it to stay in it's own tag, just like in MARC. MARC has > > >the language-of-work in a subfield apart from the title text. This > > >allows you to use just the title text when appropriate, and to combine > > >it with the language-of-work when needed. MODS does not allow you to > > >make the distinction. In my book that is an example (albeit very > > >small) of baby-with-the-bathwater. I don't want to force anyone to > > >forget $l, I just want to retain a little more information (the fact > > >that $l is NOT embedded in $a) from MARC. > > > > > > > > Another reason to keep the title part of the uniform title separate from > > the modifiers, like language, was mentioned in an earlier post: FRBR. If > > you want to FRBR-ize a group of records you need to bring them together > > on the title portion , which is the $a in MARC. I don't have a solution > > for all of the other possible subfields in the uniform title (especially > > those related to music, which are an added complexity), but I do think > > that we should keep the $a portion "clean" since it has a particular > > role in identifying the work itself. > > > > Here, here! I was the one with the FRBR post from earlier today, and > yes, that's exactly why I've not let this discussion die. One option > for a general <mods:title> solution when coming from MARC is to do > just what is done in <mods:name>. We can use a <titlePart> subnode > with an attribute specifying the source subfield. To extend the > analogy (and repeat myself a bit), in <name> we get <namePart> with no > "type" attribute for subfield $a, and <namePart> with a "type" of > "date" for subfield $d. Then the <role> child of <name> tells us the > tag (100,110) that the data came from. > > These are not completely parallel as <titleInfo> uses an attribute > instead of a subnode to tell us about the MARC tag (@type="uniform"), > but using <titlePart type="languageOfWork"> would work, and keep the > bloat down. Of course, I would prefer a <languageOfWork> subnode for > <titleInfo>, but I'd settle for anything that keeps subfield $a > "clean", as you put it. > > -- > Mike Rylander > [log in to unmask] > GPLS -- PINES Development > Database Developer > http://open-ils.org > > > -- > Mike Rylander > [log in to unmask] > GPLS -- PINES Development > Database Developer > http://open-ils.org > *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*==*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* * Dick Thaxter [log in to unmask] 202 707-7208 * * Automation Specialist * * Motion Picture, Broadcasting & Recorded Sound Division * * Library of Congress * * The usual disclaimers apply * *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=