Print

Print


Aren't there two problems here? One is to link a 
name and a title, for which a keying utility 
could work. The other is to indicate the 
authority status of the name/title combination. 
Only some name/title combinations will have a 
citable authority; so how do you encode the 
authority status of the combination?

Stephen

At 12:26 PM 7/7/2008, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I think a few (namely Jon Stroop) have stated 
>that a keying utility would work here.  I agree 
>with that solution and think that implementing a 
>key/keyref mechanism in MODS on names and titles could work well.
>
>For instance, define an attribute called 
>"nameID" on the name element.  Then introduce an 
>attribute on titleInfo called "nameRef".  These 
>would work like ID/IDREF constructs, except that 
>we can apply XPath within the schema to 
>constrain the usage of the shared common value 
>to ONLY these attributes on these two 
>elements.  The binding on these elements and 
>attributes would imply a relation between the 
>two.  This could also trickle down into cases 
>where you want to use name-titles as 
>subjects.  We could also bind subjects to the 
>name by using nameRef.  (Of course we could put 
>the keys on titleInfo instead of name, this is just an example.)
>
>Personally I like the keying solution more than 
>introducing a new element called nameTitle or 
>the like, because it seems to me that 
>name-titles are simple concatenations of strings 
>that already exist in the record whose end 
>result form an unnecessarily coordinated 
>heading.  The key/keyref alone can serve as a 
>trigger to someone making an app to process the 
>instance that says "these names and titles need 
>to be processed together for my output".
>
>Clay
>
> >>> "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]> 07/06/08 10:03 AM >>>
>Hi Rebecca,
>
>I have a record extract for a project we've been 
>working on that I think illustrates the problem 
>pretty well - records for sound recordings that 
>have 100/240/245 but no 700s with $t. All I have 
>access to today is a subset of the record 
>(100/240/245/7xx - we were doing some analysis on them). Here's an example:
>
>100 10 Hahn, Reynaldo,|d1875-1947.
>240 10 Ciboulette
>245 10 Ciboulette|h[sound recording] 
>:|bop‚erette en 3 actes /|cReynaldo Hahn ; 
>[libretto par] R. de Flers et F. de Croisset.
>700 10 Flers, Robert de,|d1872-1927.
>700 10 Croisset, Francis de,|d1877-1937.
>700 10 Mespl‚e, Mady|4prf.
>700 10 Gedda, Nicolai.|4prf.
>700 10 Dam, Jos‚e van.|4prf.
>700 10 Diederich, Cyril.|4cnd.
>710 20 Ensemble vocal Jean Laforge.|4prf.
>710 20 Orchestre philharmonique de Monte-Carlo.|4prf.
>
>I'm pretty sure that would end up in MODS with 
>lots of name elements for each of the 700s. Many 
>(maybe even most) of our records here at IU have 
>$4 relator codes, but I know that's fairly unusual.
>
>Let me know if this full set of MARC records 
>would help you and I'll see if I can dig it up to send your way.
>
>Jenn
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:42 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [MODS] uniform titles in mods
> >
> > Jenn:
> >
> > 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
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ^^  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
> > > <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-mapping.html>, 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
> > > www.dlib.indiana.edu
> > >
> > > Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
> > >

****************************************************
Stephen Hearn
Authority Control Coord./Database Mgmt. Section Head
Technical Services Dept.
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library               Voice: 612-625-2328
309 19th Avenue South              Fax: 612-625-3428
Minneapolis, MN 55455      E-mail: [log in to unmask]