LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


[email protected]


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  December 2002

MODS December 2002

Subject:

Purposes of MODS (was: Title element and subtitles)

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:08:13 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (102 lines)

Karen keeps asking this question about what MODS is for and I'll try again
to answer it.

One incentive for developing it was that people were asking for an element
set that uses XML, that is compatible with library data, and that uses
language based, rather than numeric tags. We also were particularly
concerned about the description of electronic resources.

Some of the uses that we pinpointed have been initiatives that require a
bibliographic record output in XML that is simpler than full MARC but not
as simple as Dublin Core. Some of these include the Open Archives
Initiative Harvesting project, Z39.50 Next Generation (SRU and SRW), and
METS. The descriptive metadata for each of these needs to be in XML. OAI
allowed for output as Dublin Core simple or full MARCXML; ZING in Dublin
Core, MARCXML and ONIX; METS had endorsed Dublin Core and MARCXML. In all
of these initiatives needs had been expressed for something richer than
Dublin Core (since converting data from MARC to DC necessarily drops a lot
of data) but less rich than full MARC as expressed in MARCXML (because of
the less user-friendly nature of numeric tags, fixed field data and the
larger number of data elements). Now all of these have the MODS
alternative: LC is exposing its records on the OAI server in MODS as well
as Dublin Core and MARCXML, and both ZING and METS have endorsed MODS as a
descriptive metadata format. It is particularly useful for something like
METS, which was developed for complex digital library objects which
require more complex descriptions than a simple descriptive schema can
offer and because of the necessity to detail relationships between parts
of digital objects.

But along the way we have heard from others who want to use MODS in other
ways, such as what Karen mentions, where there are varieties of metadata
creation (or library cataloging) that have similarities but still some
differences. There are a few projects that bring together metadata from
library catalogs and university presses that fall in this category. In
addition there seems to be some interest in using MODS for original
cataloging, again because it's richer than something simple like Dublin
Core but easier to use because of the language-based tags and fewer data
elements and it is more compatible with what is in library catalogs.

Quite awhile ago Karen asked this same question on this list, and Robin
Wendler gave what an interesting response (from 12 June 2002 in the MODS
archives):

"I thought MODS was intended to be a lightweight way of representing
metadata that is basically bibliographic in XML, and of providing
semantics that are a more natural fit in a library environment than those
of Dublin Core elements. But I could be wrong. ;)

I did not necessarily see a bias toward conversion from existing MARC
vs. initial creation in MODS. Nor did I see it as the Holy Grail successor
to MARC. I think that the true successor to MARC will only be developed
from rigorous analysis (as Tom Delsey has done for LC) of the current
format and an extensive community process. Given the huge volume and great
complexity of data flow in our community AND the current focus on how to
implement FRBR, it will take time to get this right. I guess I was
thinking that MARCXML and MODS between them would tide us over until that
happy day. "

Since we put MODS out we have had interest from various groups, not all
traditional libraries. There were specific purposes that we had in mind
when we started this, but we thought it may satisfy some needs we hadn't
thought of. Maybe we're trying to be too many things to too many people
and don't have a clear enough vision, but it does seem to be something
that is generating some interest perhaps because of its flexibility.

Rebecca

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Randy,
>
> I suspect that part of our "groping in the dark" here has to do with the
> fact that we haven't really settled on what the purpose of MODS is. I also
> think that it isn't the richness of MARC that people object to, it's the
> parts of it that are detailed but not useful.
>
> MARC and MODS are just data structures. What should be determining those
> structures is the data that we intend to carry. There's a big difference if
> we are carrying data that results from library cataloging, or if we are
> carrying data that has some other origins. Library cataloging data will
> have a certain level of detail, some amount of which is deemed useful in
> our environment. If instead MODS will be used to carry data that, for
> example, originates in the HTML of bookstore pages, then it will have less
> of that richness and the data structure will not need some of the features
> of the library cataloging record.
>
> What I am beginning to see here, mainly arising out of the postings by Yves
> (thank you, Yves!), is that MODS may be a good format to unite varieties of
> library cataloging that have considerable similarities but enough
> differences that they cannot reside in the same systems. It may also be
> able to carry bibliographic data that is somewhat less rich than library
> cataloging but considerably more rich than something like Dublin Core. For
> the moment, however, I think we will achieve more if we have a clear goal
> for MODS (i.e. carrier for library cataloging) than if we simply throw it
> out there and say "whatever."
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 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

November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
July 2022
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=ind0212&L=MODS&D=0&F=P&P=8077
listserv.loc.gov
CC-MAIN-2023-23
61408
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BBKLMOOYVRSEO6HKQGRAKV64XGZFJB4I
<urn:uuid:b0104c9b-30f7-444e-bdf0-3c6188c6deea>
2023-06-04T05:15:01Z
104.16.55.16
text/html
sha1:LKRITQJOUXWZFM6GZTJUPU7HEGJY35NE
<urn:uuid:8cdf8ad3-2e3d-4814-8967-b312350802be>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0212&L=MODS&D=0&F=P&P=8077
response
<urn:uuid:9e9e4602-11a4-4ccb-9c75-4cedccc7d4ef>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-181
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-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/