From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Shaun Y. Akhtar
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] typeOfResource question
For the LC Resource Types vocabulary that Kate mentioned, is there a defined code identifier that should be used as the value of @authority within <mods:typeOfResource>
in 3.7 and beyond? Are there additional authorities that will be recommended by the EC for use in this element? I see that the DCMI Type Vocabulary is part of the Genre/Form Code and Term Source Codes list, but the Resource Types Scheme doesn't appear to
yet be included in that or in related source code lists. In local practice, we typically provide both @authority and @valueURI within other controlled MODS elements, if applicable, so it would be helpful to know of relevant vocabulary codes.
Shaun Akhtar | Metadata Librarian
6025 Baker Library, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 | (603) 646-6532
Thank you, Melanie and Michele, for responding! Given the change with 3.7, I’m thinking we might shift to using the LoC resource types for all of our content since the list of options is larger, we can indicate
the authority in mods:typeOfResource, and the terms are available as linked data. All good things!
the new MODS 3.7 version will remove the controlled-list restriction from typeOfResource. So you could use "unspecified" if that is what is needed for your project.
More info on 3.7 updates can be found here:
On 10/31/2017 10:54 AM, Kathleen Gerrity wrote:
We’re trying to map from values from LC’s resource types vocab (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/resourceTypes.html)
to mods:typeOfResource (https://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/typeofresource.html)
but are coming up short in a couple of cases. We’re not sure what to map “dataset” to (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/resourceTypes/dat.html).
The other issue is that we’re also using “unspecified” (http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/resourceTypes/unk.html)
for which there is no equivalent in MODS. Given that the DLF/MODS guidelines require the use of mods:typeOfResource but the list of possible values is not comprehensive, it would be useful to have something like “unspecified” if only to cover those cases where
no other value suffices.
Any input would be most appreciated!
Metadata Management Librarian
Amherst College Library