The answer to Tony's question, of course, is "it depends on what you 
want to do with the record." I agree with Raymond that a common use of 
this RSS feed might be to add the records to a personal bibliographic 
system. You would probably want to also offer the records in the same 
format as would go to a system like Endnote (or create an Endnote filter 
for this format). I don't know of a library system that would use RSS in 
its cross-database functions that would require a record that is 
structured like a library catalog record.

For any bibliographic use, however, I do think that the name order 
matters. The usual purpose in distinguishing between family names and 
given names is so that citations can be presented in a bibliographical 
order, which generally means by the author's last name. This is such a 
common use of citations that I would think that it's a no-brainer of 
sorts. I would bet that the originating system (the Nature data) has its 
data in last name, forenames order (um... maybe I should check that ;-), 
and that this information is lost when the record is converted to DC. 
It's one of the things that really annoys me about DC, I have to say. 
However, even presenting the authors in the last name, forenames order 
within DC would allow for correct sorting of entries, as Raymond's 
MARC-to-MODS example shows.

Actually, I hadn't ever seen PRISM used before in a bibliographic 
retrieval system. I can see where it works well for article citations, 
something that we haven't handled terribly well in MARC and MODS due to 
the fact that libraries do not generally include individual articles in 
their catalogs. It's a real problem when we try to reconcile records 
from the abstracting and indexing databases and those from library 
catalogs.What will be difficult is getting this part converted nicely to 
MARC -- at least not without some loss:


Basically, you need to create a 773 field in MARC (Host item entry). It would end up looking like:

$a Nature
$d 2006-05-31
$q 441:7093:Correspondence<574 

Yuk! (If "Correspondence" is a section within the journal issue, and not 
a separate issue, it would not be included here.)

MODS has recently added a data element called "part" which I think can 
be used to give the enumeration in better detail. I don't know if anyone 
has used it and would be interested to hear how it has worked out.

Tony Hammond wrote:
> Hi Raymond:
> Many thanks for your feedback. Fully understand where you're coming from.
> Was just looking to see how we can establish a better cross-fertilization of
> two different termsets (PRISM in the library world, and MODS in the
> publisher world). Maybe one day. (The granularity thing of course is
> interesting - but that may be a separate question.)
> Cheers,
> Tony
> On 1/6/06 02:02, "Raymond Yee" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:1/6/06 02:02
>> Hi Tony,
>> Just to look at one angle of this problem.  Let's say that I want to get
>> a record that will be easily formatted for a scholarly bibliography.  To
>> that end, I want to distinguish between the given and family names of
>> authors.  The MODS specification provides for that distinction.  See
>> for an example to see
>> <name type="personal">
>> <namePart type="given">Neil</namePart>
>> <namePart type="family">Brenner</namePart>
>> <role>
>> <roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
>> </role>
>> </name>
>> Now, not all MODS records will nicely split out given vs family names.
>> For example, the following LOC record
>> itle=%22Chaucer%20Life-%20Records%22&maximumRecords=10&recordSchema=mods3
>> shows:
>>   <name type="personal">
>>     <namePart>Crow, Martin Michael</namePart>
>>     <namePart type="date">1901-</namePart>
>>     <role>
>>       <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
>>     </role>
>>     <role>
>>       <roleTerm type="text">ed.</roleTerm>
>>     </role>
>>   </name>
>> Now, the fact that the name is written as "Crow, Martin Michael" does
>> help over writing it simply as Martin Michael Crow.
>> When I look at 
>>  (accessed
>> today at around 6pm Pacific), I see
>> <item rdf:about="">
>> <title>Can the Internet save us from epidemics?</title>
>> <link></link>
>> <description>SirKathleen Morrison, in News &amp; Views (&#8220;Failure and how
>> to avoid it&#8221; Nature440, 752&#8211;754; 2006), notes that societies have
>> often prevented collapse by adopting new technological strategies. In today's
>> world, where one of the most-talked about prospects for </description>
>> <dc:title>Can the Internet save us from epidemics?</dc:title>
>> <dc:creator>David M. Eagleman</dc:creator>
>> <dc:identifier>doi:10.1038/441574c</dc:identifier>
>> <dc:source>Nature 441,  574
>> (2006)
>> </dc:source>
>> <dc:date>2006-05-31</dc:date>
>> <prism:publicationName>Nature</prism:publicationName>
>> <prism:publicationDate>2006-05-31</prism:publicationDate>
>> <prism:volume>441</prism:volume>
>> <prism:number>7093</prism:number>
>> <prism:section>Correspondence</prism:section>
>> <prism:startingPage>574</prism:startingPage>
>> <prism:endingPage>574</prism:endingPage>
>> </item>
>> My question:  if you were to present this record in MODS, would you be
>> parsing out  David M. Eagleman to be family name = Eagleman and given
>> name to be "David M.".  That is, are we going to get metadata of finer
>> granularity through MODS or ONIX than what you are currently putting
>> out?  If so, then I'd definitely be interested.  If not, I would
>> probably have code to parse out whatever you have (Since there is no
>> universal agreement on the metadata specs and since I have had to deal
>> with enough systems, whether you show me DC, or PRISM or MODS doesn't
>> really matter -- unless you get metadata of finer granularity in one
>> other the others.)
>> There are other issues to consider -- but let me just throw in this one
>> observation for now.
>> -Raymond
>> Tony Hammond wrote:
>>> Hi All:
>>> In common with many other scholarly publishers Nature Publishing Group makes
>>> citation level metadata available through its RSS feeds using the DC [1] and
>>> PRISM [2] vocabularies, see
>>> It is also experimenting an SRU wrapper service into its search indexes
>>> again exposing result records in DC and PRISM, see
>>> Question: Would it be useful (or even helpful) to also expose this metadata
>>> in MODS? As a complement to DC/PRISM? (And what about ONIX?) What is the
>>> sweet spot for libraries/publishers? (We can't really do this without some
>>> feedback from you guys. We may not have that level of imagination. Believe.
>>> :~)
>>> What do libraries want? What do end-users want? What can publishers do to
>>> improve the overall situation? To make our metadata feeds more widely
>>> useful?
>>> Our general perception is that an open disclosure of our metadata records
>>> will facilitate a third party service ecology which can only be of benefit
>>> to all.
>>> Looking for answers. Pretty, please.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tony
>>> --
>>> Tony Hammond
>>> New Technology, Nature Publishing Group
>>> 4 Crinan St., London N1 9XW, UK
>>> tel:+44-20-7843-4659
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> --
>>> [1]
>>> [2]
>>> "The Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata (PRISM)
>>> specification defines an XML metadata vocabulary for syndicating,
>>> aggregating, post-processing and multi-purposing magazine, news, catalog,
>>> book, and mainstream journal content. PRISM provides a framework for the
>>> interchange and preservation of content and metadata, a collection of
>>> elements to describe that content, and a set of controlled vocabularies
>>> listing the values for those elements."
>>> *****************************************************************************
>>> ***   
>>> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who
>>> is
>>> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in
>>> error
>>> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
>>> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
>>> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
>>> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its
>>> agents.
>>> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
>>> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
>>> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
>>> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
>>> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan
>>> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number
>>> 785998 
>>> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
>>> *****************************************************************************
>>> ***

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