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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  January 2005

MODS January 2005

Subject:

Re: MODS part

From:

Mike Rylander <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mike Rylander <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:20:06 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:10:20 -0500, Dick Thaxter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Dick Thaxter wrote:
> >
> > > I suggest that anyone who doubts the usefulness of the uniform title
> > > as a
> > > cataloger-constructed string might want to browse through one of the
> > > following sequences in any large catalog: any major work by any major
> > > composer; any Bible translation; any U.S. Treaty heading; any author
> > > whose
> > > works have been heavily adapted, translated, criticized, etc.
> > > Shakespeare would be an obvious choice.
> >
> > None of us want to rehash the argument I've made here a few times, but
> > I'll just mention it:
> >
> > I think library catalogs are in general NOT easy to search, and that a
> > big part of the reason is the metadata of exactly this sort.
> >
> > So, yes, you've got legacy and you've got the AAR2, but there are still
> > better ways to do human-friendly searching.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
>
> I wasn't talking about searching. The elements of the u.t. are not
> designed primarily to assist in searching or limiting searches. Every MARC
> OPAC that I know of uses the language codes in 008 or 041 in searching.
> The language in the u.t. is just for arrangement of a browse list in a
> potentially huge set of records. Although there are other uses for
> u.t.'s--that's best rationale for their use in library catalogs.

In a MARC context I agree completely. In a MODS context there are
other uses for uniform titles as long as they are not so lossy as to
make them useless, which they are now. My goal is to create a MODS
OPAC precisely because MARC is not a good format for searching, at
least not compared to MODS.

I jumped into this thread precisely because of searching. For the
PINES Evergreen project we see MODS as the "searchable version" of
MARC. If we need to deal with the original MARC format to provide a
portion of searching precalculation, such as FRBR-like grouping, we
will, but it makes sense to me to have enough information in MODS to
do this.

>
> And I'm not arguing that the library catalog is the best or most intuitive
> way to search. I'm trying to state some reasons why the construct of the
> u.t. evolved and what it is still useful for.
>

I won't argue for changing MARC, or against how it is useful to
catalogers. I have no desire to change the world that much. ;)

> In a MODS context, as I said before, anyone using a TitleInfo tag with the
> type "uniform title" is probably dealing in a MARC/AACR context.
>

But since MODS is a generalized format, why not let other contexts exist?

> And I notice you don't address the main argument I make--which is if you
> treat the language element of a u.t. this way, why not the other dozen
> u.t. elements?

I would argue that we should treat the dozen other u.t. elements that
way. Displayable data in elements and structural data in attributes.
I am not a cataloger, so I'm not the best person to make that
particular distinction for most subfields in MARC, but I do understand
240$l and that is why I've been using that as the example. The point
of the discussion, as stated earlier, is to keep the <title> "clean".
MODS already does that for 245 with <title> and <subtitle> elements.

So, we agree that bibliographic standards should evolve (MODS exists),
and stay backward-compatible at the same time (the preponderance of
MARC data used by non-catalogers exists in MODS). We have a huge
resource available in the form of millions of MARC records, and as
library software evolves we are finding new ways to correlate parts of
these data that were not in the original design. MODS is an enormous
boon to anyone creating end-user software because it simplifies and
standardizes the interpretation of MARC records. These new
correlations could be done in MARC, but MODS simplifies the problem
for non-catalogers such as myself. That is why we (my project) are
using it. However, in this particular instance MODS is a little too
lossy to be used for research into advanced record matching. I just
want the evolution to continue. MODS is not complete enough to
recreate an entire MARC record, so I see no benefit in assuming that
since AARC catalogers ignore the separation of subfields that MODS
should do the same. MODS is there to help the programmer and if data
can be repurposed without loosing useful information I consider that
evolution.

Again, am I missing something big here? This isn't really about MARC.
 I don't want MARC to equal MODS, I understand that this is not the
reason for MODS. I just don't want to lose useful information in the
translation. But, like I said before, I see the slippery slope. I
don't think that is the ultimate end of adding u.t. subfield
separation, though, since u.t.s can be used for initially unintended
purposes even in MARC, and libraries are just starting to learn that.
MODS seems like the natural place to work with these new techniques if
for no other reason than to avoid abusing MARC.

--
Mike Rylander
[log in to unmask]
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org

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

June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
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=ind0501&L=MODS&O=A&F=P&P=68012
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-27
60676
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:52MACHGQPCNSA24U7JB6SQYJTK2GXELR
<urn:uuid:7e105e1d-10f7-434d-af6b-53b57954f6f8>
2022-07-04T21:58:30Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:JI7RZVOR2KIT3PWAFNA77UAH3FDDI4WF
<urn:uuid:44cfaba6-cce5-42f2-9de5-97c62dc8c9b5>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0501&L=MODS&O=A&F=P&P=68012
response
<urn:uuid:53419a74-93da-48bc-9680-623579f2579c>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-27
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June/July 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-49
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/