LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  April 2003

MODS April 2003

Subject:

Re: MODS, bibliographic managers and journal articles

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:45:55 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (97 lines)

We did not include all the values you mention from the Leader/07
(Bibliographic level), i.e. monographic component part, etc. in MODS
because this character position mixes different types of information and
we wanted to split these out. It includes issuance (i.e. serial,
monograph; whether it is finite or infinite), aggregation level
(collection, item) and mode of issuance (integrating updates or complete
as issued). So in MODS we defined issuance separately. "Collection" is an
attribute in type of resource, since each of those values could be a
single item or collection. Component part seemed to be such a difficult
concept that is relative to the particular situation and not particularly
useful that we didn't provide anything specifically for it. Components of
a larger work being described can be expressed in relatedItem (as
type="constituent") or if a component itself is described by linking to
the parent in relatedItem with type="host".

In all this discussion about being able to better handle journal articles
and the like this question does arise about whether we need something that
specifically says "I am a component part" or whether the other data will
make it obvious (particularly the relatedItem data). I think the latter is
the case, particularly if we enhance the ability to give more information
about the parent/host.

Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
^^  1st and Independence Ave. SE                          ^^
^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
^^  [log in to unmask]                                          ^^
^^                                                        ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Karen Coyle wrote:

> The "reference type" thing is a bit complex. I think there are two ways to
> look at "reference type" --
>
> 1) you can look at it structurally - this means that you divide your
> universe into items published singly (books) and those published serially
> (journals). (There is another category, but let's not go there for now.)
> Then you can have your "types" be structural parts of those items -- i.e.
> chapters of books, articles in journals. There is a code in MARC for
> "monographic component part" and "serial component part." A bit terse, but
> I find these very useful for data processing because they tell you what
> data elements to expect and how to interpret them.
>
> 2) Some systems name "types" that are more about the nature of the
> contents, but that often also include your "reference type": journal
> article, conference paper, literature review, patent, preprint, technical
> report, etc. These are tricky because they don't always unambiguously
> correspond to one of the structural elements in 1, above, and different
> communities interpret them differently. However, sometimes that's all
> you're given to work with. In that case, I usually find that we have to
> extrapolate using other data elements in the record (i.e. if it has an ISSN
> and gives a page range, then it's probably a journal article).
>
> I think we should strive to clarify 1 in MODS. Even that isn't easy, and
> I've been working on a scheme that I'll try to post tomorrow if I get more
> time to work on it.
>
> kc
>
> At 05:11 PM 4/12/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Karen wrote:
> >
> >>So if we can extend the MODS record to accommodate data from citation
> >>indexing then we are working toward that goal of integrated
> >>information resources.
> >
> >So what is missing, beyond elements for things like volume and issue
> >number?
> >
> >One thing I'm starting to understand is this:
> >
> >On one hand, MODS/MARC has a "resource type" that is broader and more
> >general than the "reference type" you see in applications focused on
> >bibliographic formatting (where type examples include book, journal
> >article, chapter, map, etc.).  On the other, it has the "genre" which
> >is more specific and related to content.  But in order to format
> >bibliographic records, you do need an intermediate categorization that
> >can describe how the record ought to be formatted.  I don't know
> >exactly what that ought to be in practice, though, or whether MODS
> >ought to try to include that.
> >
> >Bruce
>
> *********************************************
> Karen Coyle           [log in to unmask]
>
>             http://www.kcoyle.net
> **********************************************
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0304&L=MODS&O=A&P=9215
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-16
59023
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KIRKXHQRKMXC4FDYQDTDH4U7EGKP7PSC
<urn:uuid:2209e931-45e4-4ea7-9076-285d5771a0fc>
2020-03-31T03:08:01Z
140.147.55.47
text/html
sha1:WKJN6WQHES7EFO2G7BQPVYASJS2M42GZ
<urn:uuid:2db560ba-61d7-4259-a834-cf109f77b5b1>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0304&L=MODS&O=A&P=9215
response
<urn:uuid:d187501c-f76b-4f37-85ea-e5896976b8ff>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-16
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-100.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/