Dear all,

Thank you for your constructive ideas. The main point in my original posting
was how to prevent the development of all kinds of workarounds to create
book_review descriptions in MODS. Therefore, I proposed a possible solution. 

I hope the MODS/MAPS committee will come with good suggestions. We have had
a look on the genre "review", but we've decided not to use it becasue of the
lacking of a good definition. This is exactly what Karen Coyle mentioned.

I agree with Karen that there are related problems to be solved. But on the
other hand, we see in Europe in the more traditional repositories the
standard set of publication types, all of them described in the "MODS
samples", except for the type "book review". 

So, I hope we can find an acceptable way to describe "book reviews" in order
to create uniform and exchangeable records.

Arjan Hogenaar

Riley, Jenn wrote:
> Hello all,
> The MODS/MADS Editorial Committee has just begun the process of analyzing
> proposals for changes to the next version of MODS. We're currently
> planning both a new minor release (3.4) and a major release (4.0). 3.4
> will be backwards compatible to 3.3 and therefore only be able to
> introduce certain types of changes. 4.0 will not be backwards compatible
> and therefore offer us the opportunity to make some structural and
> otherwise significant changes, such as greater use of externally-defined
> vocabularies and properties. We'll start posting to the list and the MODS
> web sites reports of our conversations as they happen.
> The conversation in this thread has suggested both short-term (3.4) and
> long-term (4.0) ways in which the problem raised might be addressed in
> MODS. I expect this issue will be on our discussion agenda for our next
> call in two weeks, March 25. Thanks for re-raising the book review issue,
> Arjan, and stay tuned for information on the Editorial Committee's
> discussion.
> In the meantime, we're actively reviewing change proposals, so if you have
> them, post them here!
> Jenn Riley
> Chair, MODS/MADS Editorial Committee
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> Inquiring Librarian blog:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MODS] Addition of new type value "reviewOf" for relatedItem
> The terms in Appendix J of RDA have been entered into the Metadata
> Registry:
> Because they each have a unique identifier, you could use them 
> unambiguously (if not 'legally') in a MODS record. The difficulty will 
> be that they have implied in them the FRBR levels (work, expression, 
> etc.), but you could probably decide to stick to manifestation as a safe 
> choice. I guess that would have to imply that you are recording a 
> manifestation-to-manifestation relationship. Where I think things might 
> break down will be in the lack of identifiers for the bibliographic 
> items, so it will be hard to get a good fix on the reciprocity in a 
> system unless you use system numbers. If you try this out, let us know 
> how it works.
> kc
> 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:
>>> 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',  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:
> -- 
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> [log in to unmask]
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------

View this message in context:
Sent from the MODS Forum mailing list archive at