Date:Wed, 16 May 2007 13:46:36 -0700
Reply-To:Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:Joe Altimus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: a few other possible 3.3 changes
Comments:To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:multipart/alternative;
That would be great to add ISO 639-3. Arizona State University has started
to use those language codes in metadata for Maricopa and other Native
American languages, so being able to map those to MODS (and MARC) is
important.
Joe Altimus
Metadata/Electronic Resources Catalog Librarian
Arizona State University Libraries
On 5/16/07, Rebecca S. Guenther <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 1. Add an xlink attribute to <physicalLocation>. It seems that we need an
> xlink attribute to be used with <physicalLocation> (under location). This
> is equivalent to $u in MARC field 852. That is, the URL for a website for
> the institution named in physicalLocation. This is not the same as
> <location><url>, which is the URL for the resource described in the
> record. Such an element is also included in the proposed ISO holdings
> schema. Using xlink would be consistent with other places in MODS where
> we make such a link (similar to $u in MARC fields).
>
> 2. Add another enumerated value for authority under <language>.
> ISO 639-3 was recently approved and codes all known individual
> languages. This list is much more granular than the ISO 639-2 list.
> FYI: we can handle this in MARC 041 field by adding it to the list of
> authorities defined for use with subfield $2. In MODS we have these
> enumerated in the schema, although in a later version we may want to
> change that to make it more extensible.
>
> In addition, RFC3066 has been superceded by RFC4646, so we may want to
> add that too. I would leave RFC3066 for earlier records.
>
> Are there any objections to either of these changes to be included in
> version 3.3?
>
> Rebecca
>
