Date:         Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:59:08 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Houghton,Andrew" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: MODS and Dublin Core (previously Re: Alternate proposa l)
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:08 AM
>
> 1. You say below that LC could "reuse an existing standard" by using
> Dublin Core. MARC is an existing standard that has been enormously
> successful and suits people's needs for the communities it
> serves. So we
> are already reusing an existing standard.

True, MARC is a standard but not an existing XML metadata standard.
Which is essentially what you are trying to accomplish with MODS.

> 2. Dublin Core semantics are extremely broad; the advantage of MODS is
> 3. Dublin Core has essentially no content rules. MARC fields
> 4. Dublin Core elements do not have anything like
> 5. There is nothing that can be said about

Yes, all this is true.  You can qualify DC to get around these issues.

> 6. We considered using some of the Dublin Core names for elements, but

Agree here as well.  Some of DC element names should have had more
thought behind them.

> 7. From what we had been hearing in various digital library projects,

From what I have been hearing from the DC community is that DC is
making lots of progress in non-library communities whom either
don't want or need library standards for metadata.  The library
community is a small part of the overall metadata picture.  I think
you agree with that latter statement, below, after (8).

> 8. There is still no agreed-upon XML schema for qualified Dublin Core
> (although some work is being done in this area).

True, but that doesn't mean you should define another standard,
because an existing one hasn't reached consensus.  A better
approach might be to work with the existing DC community to the
benefit of both.  Your argument here to justify MODS, seems odd
to me.

But lets not forget that DC is coupled with RDF.  So buying into DC
means buying into RDF.  Now that seems like a better argument in favor
of justifying MODS ;-)

> As I said, Dublin Core is particularly useful for broad cross-domain
> resource discovery.  This is not what we are after with MODS,
> which is a richer resource description. Interest in MODS we assume
> is for a more limited community (although broader than just libraries).

With some changes I could see MODS being useful in both the broad
cross-domain resource discovery and for richer resource description.
This was one the reasons for my refinement proposal.  You could start
with 19, or so, non-refined elements that could be used broadly like
DC and then provide a series of MARC like refinements to the base 19
for the richer resource description applicable to multiple communities.

Other communities could either build on the 19 non-refined elements
or the MARC like refinements depending upon their needs.  LC could
then make further refinements to the MARC like refinements that would
allow full round tripping of MARC21 to MODS to MARC21 without loss of
information or displacing of information into other fields.

I feel that with a little more thought you could have a more
extensible metadata standard that would serve many more diverse
metadata communities.


Andy.