Date:         Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:36:38 -0700
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Is Identifier too restrictive?
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; format=flowed

I'm certainly not the one to tell anyone what it _is_, but I can
certainly speak up about what I _hope_ it would be, and that would be a
general purpose, extensible, and highly granular bibliographic metadata
standard. I want an XML record schema that is much more extensible than
MARC, that can take us beyond the limitations of MARC and enable much
richer records (e.g., tables of contents, reviews, etc.) than is
presently possible without standing on our heads (just how much can we
stuff into a 500 field I wonder?). It should be able to take everything
worth saving from MARC, but also be used to create records from scratch.
In the best of all possible worlds, it will both replace MARC and take
us well beyond it. But that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Roy

On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 06:02 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Robin, can you tell us what those identifers are?
>
> Also, when I asked many moons ago about the purpose of MODS I was given
> the
> impression that it was intended as a way to transform MARC to XML, and
> was
> not expected to be for the direct creation of MARC-like XML. I may have
> misunderstood that, but I know we had that conversation. Yet, all of the
> discussions of MODS that I see (outside of this list) are with people
> who
> are trying to create MODS records from non-MARC metadata.
>
> So, once again, am I thoroughly confused as to the purpose of MODS?!
>
> kc
>
> At 12:27 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, Robin Wendler wrote:
>> Hi, all -- Someone here took a look at MODS and rejected it in part
>> because his data contains two key identifiers that fall outside the
>> enumerated list in MODS identifierType "type" attribute. There is a
>> "local" value, but people will need to be able to specify the scheme
>> when
>> there is more than one unsanctioned ID number.
>>
>> I know MODS cannot be all things to all people, but do you see any
>> value
>> to allowing an optional "otherIdentifierType" attribute?
>>
>> (NB: In genreType, MODS forks between the enumerated list and an
>> "otherGenre". The cases are not quite parallel, but the idea is
>> similar.)
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts on this,
>>
>> -- Robin
>>
>> Robin Wendler  ........................     work  (617) 495-3724
>> Office for Information Systems  .......     fax   (617) 495-0491
>> Harvard University Library  ...........     [log in to unmask]
>> Cambridge, MA, USA 02138  .............
>