This is a good question. We have discussed the situation with name/title
headings here and have wondered whether there is a need to make any
changes for this sort of thing. We had intended that the uniform title be
in <title type="uniform">, and you are correct that this doesn't
explicitly link it to a particular name. We probably need to analyze some
examples to see where this won't work. In some cases when you need to link
the name and the uniform title, they are cases of related items (e.g.
constituents) where they get linked because they are in the same
relatedItem container. But there may be other cases where this doesn't
suffice, so some other mechanism perhaps resulting in a change to MODS
could be considered.  The intention was NOT to put the name in title
type=uniform. Someone mentioned the use of xlink; the general linking
mechanism in MODS would be use of the ID attribute (i.e. if 2 elements
have the same ID value they are linked). That could be used in the
meanwhile while we analyze this situation with more examples.

It would be interesting to hear from others whether they have had a
similar problem.

^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
^^  1st and Independence Ave. SE                          ^^
^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
^^  [log in to unmask]                                          ^^
^^                                                        ^^

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Riley, Jenn wrote:

> Hello all,
> I'm having trouble figuring out how to encode a Uniform Title in a
> MODS record. While some Uniform Titles (e.g., for the Bible) only have
> a title component, most have both a name and title components, with
> the title not making sense without the name. This is common for music.
> This is what a sample MARC name-title authority record would show:
> 100 10 |a Beethoven, Ludwig van, |d 1770-1827. |t Symphonies, |n no.
> 5, op. 67, |r C minor
> And this is how the UT would appear in a MARC bibliographic record:
> 100     1_ |a Beethoven, Ludwig van, |d 1770-1827.
> 240     10 |a Symphonies, |n no. 5, op. 67, |r C minor
> The full UT is split across the 100/240 pair. For a MODS record, one
> would think Beethoven would go in <name> and Symphonies... in
> <titleInfo type="uniform">. But how is the connection between the name
> and the title parts of the full UT made in the MODS record? In MODS,
> lists all the contributors in <name> elements, whereas in MARC you
> only have one 100 field - other names are in 7xx fields.
> I'm not advocating MODS adopt the concept of main entry, but to use
> the UT effectively (which presumably is a goal of MODS since
> type="uniform" is defined for <titleInfo>) there needs to be *some*
> way to connect the right name with the UT. I'm very uncomfortable with
> the idea of including the name as part of the <titleInfo
> type="uniform"> - is that what is intended? The MARC to MODS mapping
> seems to support this not being the right thing to do. At
> <>, it just pulls
> in 240 data into <titleInfo> - it doesn't include data from the 100.
> But what other options are there?
> Thanks,
> Jenn
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> Inquiring Librarian blog: