Print

Print


Andrew,

I can't answer that, but I think you're asking the right question. In
theory, the MODS record IS the wrapper around the name and the title, or
at least the primary name and the main title. In MARC we have a
designated "main" field for name and for title and those are
non-repeatable, so there isn't any ambiguity. Everything else is a kind
of auxiliary name or title, but the main ones always refer to the item
as a whole. I can see where you could  create  an ambiguous record with
multiple names and multiple titles in MODS because the structure doesn't
prevent it, but it would be a bad idea. Wouldn't it?

kc

Andrew E Switala wrote:

>What are the semantics of this element? Specifically, let X be the
>resource described by the MODS record, and let Z be the resource
>described by the proposed name/title combination.
>
>* If X is Z, the name and titleInfo are children of <mods>
>* If X is about Z, the name and titleInfo are children of <subject>
>* If X contains Z, the name and titleInfo are children of <relatedItem>
>with type="constituent".
>* Same thing if Z contains X, but with type="host".
>* ... and so for all the other relatedItem types.
>
>What is the relationship between X and Z if the name and titleInfo are
>children of this proposed element, that is not covered by any existing
>element?
>
>
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] 03/01/05 9:56 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>MODS doesn't make the main entry/added entry distinction, so it's
>100/700$a with $t. Yes, noone uses 100$t. It could be a name/uniform
>title
>or a name/some other title. The project here is used relatedItem to do
>sort of subrecords for constituent items within the larger item and
>would
>like a way to bind together name and title outside of relatedItem,
>similar
>to 700$a with $t.
>
>Rebecca
>
>
>

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------