Dear Saa¹ha,
dear all,

the paper that I described in my earlier email (see below) has just been announced and published by NDMSO:

Proposal 2012-03: Data Provenance in the MARC 21 Bibliographic Format
( )

The full announcement is available here: 

Best regards



Reinhold Heuvelmann
German National Library
IT / Office for Data Formats
Adickesallee 1
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telephone: +49-69-1525-1709
Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
mailto:[log in to unmask]

***Reading. Listening. Understanding. A century of the German National Library***

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Heuvelmann, Reinhold
>Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:53 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [MODS] AW: [MODS] machine generated classification in MODS
>Dear Saa¹ha,
>dear all,
>I would like to inform you that there is a very similar approach to add
>information about classification data to the MARC format.
>Driven by the Dewey experts at OCLC and at the Library of Congress, and
>by the German National Library, there will be a paper on the MARBI
>agenda for June this year.  The goal is to add content designation to
>the MARC format for provenance information, or data about data.
>The draft paper as it is now has two sections, one about the immediate
>need of adding subfields to MARC 082, 083 and 084; and a second section
>about a broader approach that covers every MARC field, by defining a new
>field in the 88X range, and using $8 to link the two fiields together
>inside the MARC record.
>Data about data, or provenance information, may be split up into (at
>least) "Method of assignment" (basically in binary form, assigned by a
>machine, or not), and "Process of assignment" (by giving a URI, a
>process name, or some other description), and a "Confidence value",
>which is a numerical value.  These three parts may each form one newly
>defined subfield in 082, 083, and 084.  A subfield $q "Assigning agency"
>already exists in these fields.  The new field 88X may contain them as
>well, plus additional elements, as date and time information, and an
>identifier leading to an authority record.
>Regarding the timeline, we are still working on a complete draft, which
>then will have to be sent to the colleagues at NDMSO, and after some
>steps I expect the paper to be put onto the MARBI agenda and to be
>published some weeks from now.
>I have talked about this process during a meeting of the MODS/MADS
>Editorail Committee yesterday.  The Committee suggested to inform you
>and the whole community, and maybe wait what direction the discussion
>will take, and then see how this may work in MODS and MADS as well.
>Best regards
>Reinhold Heuvelmann
>German National Library
>IT / Office for Data Formats
>Adickesallee 1
>D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
>Telephone: +49-69-1525-1709
>Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
>mailto:[log in to unmask]
>***Reading. Listening. Understanding. A century of the German National
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Metadata Object Description Schema List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Saa¹ha Metsarantala
>Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2012 17:07
>An: [log in to unmask]
>Betreff: [MODS] machine generated classification in MODS
>Items are often classified according to different classification
>According to the MODS schema, we can put several classification elements
>with different @authority attributes, like this:
>classification authority="lcc"
>classification authority="ddc"
>This is very useful! Good!
>Sometimes, each classification is achieved by a human. In other cases, a
>classication can be automatically generated by a software translating
>from a
>classification formerly done in another classification system. Such a
>machine generated classification is often less accurate and / or less
>granular than a classification done by a trained human.
>I wonder whether storing an automatically generated classification can
>considered being within the scope of what MODS intends to accomplish and
>it is the case whether we could add a new @generator attribute on the
>classification element. This would be an indication that the
>is automatically generated and it could also be used to store which
>was used to achieve this translation. As a work-around, we could of
>use the @edition attribute similarly to
>classification authority="lcc"
>classification authority="ddc" edition="22 machine generated from lcc by
>foo-software version 1.2"
>but I consider it would be more easily parsable (through XSLT etc.) to
>classification authority="lcc"
>classification authority="ddc" edition="22" generator="lcc2ddc-foo-
>or (maybe even better) through a URI
>classification authority="lcc"
>classification authority="ddc" edition="22"
>or similar.