Print

Print


Am 27.12.12 21:11, schrieb Guenther, Rebecca:
> Thomas: can you give us an example of the automatic transformations
> in other formats? What might the data look like that you are trying
> to transform?

Hi,

I will try to do that. If you take for example BibTeX. There a list of 
unknown authors is actually encoded as "and others":

author={Scheffler, Thomas and others}

In contrast to that

author={Scheffler, Thomas and et al.}

would mean something completely different. You see hopefully, I need to 
store this information machine readable in MODS so that I can convert it 
to other metadata formats, that provide this information. I do not think 
that this is such an uncommon scenario that should be uncovered by the 
MODS standard.

kind regards,

Thomas

> -----Original Message----- From: Metadata Object Description Schema
> List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Scheffler
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:44 AM To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MODS] how to mark "et al."
>
> Am 26.12.2012 23:27, schrieb Guenther, Rebecca:
>> The MODS Editorial Committee has discussed this request. It seems
>> that there are a few issues (correct me if I'm wrong): 1. Somehow
>> marking the record or names with "et al." to indicate that there is
>> a longer list we don't know about
>
> Thank you for your response and yes that is exactly the point.
>
>> The Editorial Committee didn't think that the usage attribute was
>> the proper place for this, because we would have to change its
>> meaning.
>>
>> The "et al." would be in the statement of responsibility
>> (particularly if cataloging rules were followed), thus indicating
>> that there is a longer list of names. In MODS that goes to note
>> type="statement of responsibility". Doesn't this help?
>>
>> If there is reason to give an explicit indication about the
>> missing names, one could create a bogus name to be used in the
>> <name> element, e.g. <name><namePart>et al.</namePart></name>. You
>> could also use the <description> element under name to explain the
>> situation.
>
> This is where I don't feel the solution is right. I need an official
> suggestion how to mark entries as being "unknown" or "et al." for
> automatic transformations in other metadata formats that offer this
> description. Having this in prose somewhere in description would not
> fit that purpose as it is not machine readable. So yes, it should be
> attached to the name element somehow as this is where the roles are
> handled.
>
> Of cause adding this two entries would change the usage attribute but
> it would just add two more valid values. So there is no incompatible
> change here. In my opinion the definition "Use of the name in the
> resource description." is generic enough to handle these cases, too.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Thomas Scheffler
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Metadata Object Description
>> Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas
>> Scheffler Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 5:19 AM To:
>> [log in to unmask] Subject: [MODS] how to mark "et al."
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder what is the best solution to mark a mods:name being the
>> "et al." part in a list of persons. The way I see it, the "usage"
>> attribute should be the best place. There is already a value
>> "primary" defined to mark the main author.
>>
>> Are there any known mods profiles that mark mods:name entries as
>> "et al."? If not I would like to suggest that usage="et al." marks
>> a undefined list of names, where the real name of
>> persons/corporations could not, would not or can not be resolved.
>> Leaving an entry fully uncommented may result in loosing semantics
>> in further transformation processes or software that handle these
>> cases.
>>
>> This problem is similar to unknown persons where you have some
>> information for the description or affiliation. I would suggest
>> that these names should be marked as usage="unknown".
>>
>> I am looking forward for any comments on this matter.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Thomas Scheffler