Print

Print


I agree with Rhonda--if MODS is to survive it needs to pay better 
attention to the necessity to reuse properties, rather than create them 
anew just because thats what has always been done.

Just to point out that the Appendix J relationships are available in the 
NSDL Registry here: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/13.html  
To see the specific properties, click on the properties tab (the list is 
in order registered, alpha order can be invoked by clicking on 
"Label").   JSC is meeting the end of this week and all of next, and we 
have been warned that Appendix J will change, perhaps significantly.  
The properties registered as of the current version will be updated as 
soon as we get the revisions.  It might be wise to wait until then 
(early June will be the magic cut off for changes) to "adopt" anything 
from Appendix J.

There are currently 262 registered, which includes all except a handful 
that are problematic for various reasons.  They are set up to be 
reciprocal.  One issue is that they are linked to specific FRBR 
entities, and this may be problematic for MODS, which currently doesn't 
address FRBR.

Diane Hillmann
Information Institute of Syracuse/Metadata Management Associates

Rhonda Marker wrote:
> This is not the only case in which the relatedItem type vocabulary is 
> frustratingly limited. The MARC origins of MODS are weighing us down. 
> (Never mind-- that's just a splinter in my finger so to speak, not the 
> main point here.)
>
> I'd like to see more explicit reciprocity in the type vocabulary when 
> it is warranted, e.g. "reviewOf" and "ReviewIn". I'd also like to see 
> a more elastic registry of <relatedItem> type values so that we don't 
> have to move heaven and earth to apply the element to fit our needs. 
> To begin with I'd like to see MODS populate the type vocabulary for 
> this element with the relationship designators found in the RDA draft, 
> Appendix J.
>
> Rhonda Marker
> Repository  Collection Manager
> Scholarly Communication Center / Alexander Library
> Rutgers University Libraries
>
> ArjanTh wrote:
>> Dear MODS users,
>>
>> The Dutch scientific institutions – united in Surfshare (the 
>> successor of
>> DAREnet) – have decided to use MODS in the description of objects in 
>> their
>> repositories. The main reason to do so is the higher granularity MODS 
>> offers
>> to its users.
>>
>> For most type of documents,  MODS is providing us with nice examples 
>> in the
>> “Sample MODS Version 3 XML Documents”, available at:
>> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-guidance.html. Unfortunately, no
>> example has been given on how to handle with ‘book reviews’.
>> Of course, others have pointed out this problem as well (see the 
>> discussions
>> on the MODS forum). But pointing out the problem will not 
>> automatically lead
>> to a final solution.  In November 2007, Jenn Riley has started the
>> discussion on this subjects and Joe Altimus has made good suggestions to
>> overcome the problems (as agreed to by Rebecca Guenther).
>>
>> Meanwhile, workarounds are being developed at several places to 
>> create book
>> review descriptions in MODS. This is understandable, but we don’t 
>> think this
>> is a welcome development.
>> In Europe (the DRIVER project) and more specifically in the 
>> Netherlands, we
>> need to find a way to handle ‘book reviews’ as soon as possible. The 
>> Royal
>> Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (the maintainer of the service
>> 'NARCIS', www.narcis.info)  proposes to introduce the new type value
>> "reviewOf" for 'relatedItem'. [ relatedItem type="reviewOf"> ].
>>
>> This solution is quite similar to the one explained by Joe Altimus in
>> November 2007. In Europe it is supported by Benoît Pauwels of the Free
>> University of Brussels.
>>
>> With this new type value "reviewOf" it will be clear to everyone how to
>> create book review descriptions in MODS and it will stop the 
>> development of workarounds. Besides, we think this proposal is rather 
>> easy to implement.
>>
>> Furthermore, it would we helpful when the 'book review' - after the 
>> approval
>> of this proposal - will be introduced in the “Sample MODS Version 3 XML
>> Documents”.
>>
>> Arjan Hogenaar
>>
>> -- 
>> Arjan Hogenaar
>> Research Information
>> Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
>> Kloveniersburgwal 29, Amsterdam
>> P.O. Box 19121, 1000 GC  Amsterdam
>> T.: +31 (0)20-4628641
>> W: www.knaw.nl
>>
>>   
>