Date:         Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:21:36 -0600
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Journal holdings not using <extension>?
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:15 AM, Jan Ashton wrote:

> I am working on a MARC to MODS mapping for one of our journal  
> files. Each
> journal record may contain holdings information from the 852 and from
> local holdings fields as below:
[snip]

> Is my only (or best) way to handle this in MODS to use an <extension>
> holdings schema? I have some concerns about interoperability issues  
> if I
> use the <extension> element. For example, I know that in the UK,  
> another
> consortium is developing its own local holdings extensions while the
> example in the MODS Guidelines is for the Z39.50 XML Holdings schema
> (which may be overly complex for these simple holdings summaries  
> anyway).
> So I've been looking at using <location> and <physicalLocation> as
> elements for Location/Sub-collection and Shelfmark but am having  
> problems
> linking the relevant holdings to the right location using
> <physicalDescription> <extent>.

I currently use MARCXML in the <extension> when I need to carry holdings
information with the MODS record. It has the benefit of being familiar,
avoids your concerns about the Z39.50 XML Holdings schema, and should be
reasonable to transform to whatever schemata are needed later for
interoperability.

Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]>
Programmer/Analyst
University of Chicago Library