Print

Print


Hi Rosie,

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been tied up getting MODS 3.7 out this month. I’ll do my best to answer your questions below and invite others on the MODS Editorial Committee to elaborate as they see fit.

 

Firstly, I want to let you know that we just posted a link to our MODS 3.6 to BIBFRAME 2.0 mapping here http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-conversions.html and we are currently in the process of drafting some explanatory text for it--to help put it in context. That will be added shortly—maybe by the end of this week—and it may help you see forward a bit re: MODS and BIBFRAME. Also, there is a development BIBFRAME 2.0 editor that you can play around on here <http://bibframe.org/bibliomata/bfe/development.html#>—it is straight BIBFRAME—and similar to the one that we are using for the BIBFRAME pilot here at LC. You are welcome to play around on it, but data is not necessarily saved.

 

Secondly, A MODS RDF initiative under the leadership of Melanie Wacker at Columbia Univ.  Melanie is an active member of the MODS forum so I will leave it to her to describe this effort.

Thirdly, regarding the blank node issue: there seems to be a misunderstanding about BIBFRAME and blank nodes. BIBFRAME takes no position on the use of blank nodes.  The illustrative BIBFRAME examples on the LC website are supplied using Turtle serialization, because we think it is the most human-readable serialization and after all these are intended as illustrative examples.  Turtle does lend itself to the illusion that blank nodes are being specified, and that is not at all intended. We have tried, and will continue to try, to correct this misunderstanding.

 

I hope that these answers will help you consider your best way forward with MODS at this point.

 

Best, Tracy

 

Tracy Meehleib

Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave SE

Washington, DC 20540-4402
+1 202 707 0121 (voice)
+1 202 707 0115 (fax)

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rosemary Le Faive
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 2:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] MODS Registry & Tools Page Update -- Jan 2018

 

Hi Tracy,

 

I work with MODS in Islandora*, and we are currently straining to figure out how to deal with MODS in the future. 

 

The Islandora community has been hugely invested in MODS (though badly represented on your implementation list, I'm sorry to see) but with the move to Fedora 4 and an RDF-based repository system, we have been considering how best to deal with our data. I have been heading the Metadata Interest Group for the last half-year with this goal in mind. 

 

Do we try to express MODS in RDF? 

Do we migrate to another expressive RDF-based schema, like BIBFRAME? 

Do we abandon the granularity and expressiveness of MODS and condense into Dublin Core Terms? 

Do we retain MODS (and its underlying assumptions of an integral "metadata record") and map dynamically into RDF where required?

 

We have been examining the two LOC initiatives, MODS RDF,  and BIBFRAME, with some trepidation. Both seem to make excessive use of blank nodes, and are therefore hard to implement in the way we had imagined (what does a BIBFRAME "record" editor look like?). MODS RDF seems to be abandoned, and BIBFRAME doesn't have any conversions that we can see from MODS, just MARC.

 

Would you have time to chat, about what LOC considers to be the future of MODS, especially with relation to RDF? 

 

Many thanks,

 

-Rosie

 

* The Islandora system includes a fantastic yet complicated system ("XML Form Builder") which lets us create Drupal forms that map to MODS with arbitrary complexity and XML attributes. Editing a MODS record using one of these forms does so non-destructively (preserving any elements in the original that aren't represented in the form). However this piece of software is considered too complex to manage, and we do not see a possibility to migrate it to the next version of Islandora. 

 

 

 

On 8 January 2018 at 11:28, Meehleib, Tracy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi MODS Users,

We are in the process of updating the MODS Implementation Registry and Tools for MODS pages and would like to add any new projects/tools that are currently available to the community.

If you would like your projects/tools to be included, please supply information for each category in the MODS Implementation Registry http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/registry.php
and/or Tools for MODS page http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/tools_for_mods.php, and we will add your projects/tools to the registry.

If you have already registered an implementation or a tool, please take a moment to review the entry for it and send us any new information we might need to bring the entry up to date.

Thank you, Tracy

Tracy Meehleib
Network Development and MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave SE
Washington, DC 20540-4402
+1 202 707 0121 (voice)
+1 202 707 0115 (fax)
[log in to unmask]



 

--

 

Rosie Le Faive

Digital Infrastructure and Discovery Librarian

tel: 902-566-0533 | fax: 902-628-4305 | email: [log in to unmask]

 

Robertson Library

University of Prince Edward Island

550 University Ave, Charlottetown PE C1A 4P3

Canada