On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:17:16 -0800, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mike Rylander wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:54:31 -0500, Dick Thaxter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>MODS folks,
> >>
> >> What I think is missing from this conversation is an understanding of
> >>what a uniform title is designed to do in catalogs that follow AACR or
> >>similar rules. It is a device that tacks on any number of elements in
> >>order to coerce an unchaotic arrangement in what can be very long listings
> >>of similar and derivative works. My own feeling is that it's unwise to
> >>pick out language as one of these elements and treat it as not part of
> >>that human-readable string that comprises the u.t.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't want to treat $l as "not part of that human-readable string",
> >I just want it to stay in it's own tag, just like in MARC. MARC has
> >the language-of-work in a subfield apart from the title text. This
> >allows you to use just the title text when appropriate, and to combine
> >it with the language-of-work when needed. MODS does not allow you to
> >make the distinction. In my book that is an example (albeit very
> >small) of baby-with-the-bathwater. I don't want to force anyone to
> >forget $l, I just want to retain a little more information (the fact
> >that $l is NOT embedded in $a) from MARC.
> >
> >
> Another reason to keep the title part of the uniform title separate from
> the modifiers, like language, was mentioned in an earlier post: FRBR. If
> you want to FRBR-ize a group of records you need to bring them together
> on the title portion , which is the $a in MARC. I don't have a solution
> for all of the other possible subfields in the uniform title (especially
> those related to music, which are an added complexity), but I do think
> that we should keep the $a portion "clean" since it has a particular
> role in identifying the work itself.
>
Here, here! I was the one with the FRBR post from earlier today, and
yes, that's exactly why I've not let this discussion die. One option
for a general <mods:title> solution when coming from MARC is to do
just what is done in <mods:name>. We can use a <titlePart> subnode
with an attribute specifying the source subfield. To extend the
analogy (and repeat myself a bit), in <name> we get <namePart> with no
"type" attribute for subfield $a, and <namePart> with a "type" of
"date" for subfield $d. Then the <role> child of <name> tells us the
tag (100,110) that the data came from.
These are not completely parallel as <titleInfo> uses an attribute
instead of a subnode to tell us about the MARC tag (@type="uniform"),
but using <titlePart type="languageOfWork"> would work, and keep the
bloat down. Of course, I would prefer a <languageOfWork> subnode for
<titleInfo>, but I'd settle for anything that keeps subfield $a
"clean", as you put it.
--
Mike Rylander
[log in to unmask]
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
--
Mike Rylander
[log in to unmask]
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
