Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.5
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (December 2003)Back to main MODS pageJoin or leave MODSReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:         Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:11:34 -0800
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: genres and governments records
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 17:32, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > There's nothing equivalent for either magazine or journal articles. > While recognizing your genres-are-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder point, it > seems to me these are more "useful" than, for example, "font" or > "game." As you can tell, the genres in MARC were based on actual items in libraries. (Note: games and kits were fairly common items in school libraries and public libraries. Educational, of course.) Journal articles were rarely individually cataloged by libraries and were considered covered by the Leader code for "analytic" (i.e. a part of an item). Adding something that means: "individual item in a serial publication" covers a kind of structural need. I know that the system that I worked on needed this to correctly derive certain kinds of displays. It's something else to assign genres that are more content oriented: review article, editorial, etc. Do you feel that you lack a statement of the bibliographic structure, or of the genre? I still think we need to consider how we anticipate using these genres. If we are thinking of them as something helpful to display to users of the metadata, and that there can be more than one on a record, then we should have the list be pretty loose. If we consider these to be a single, definitive statement of the content that might trigger some difference in processing, then the list should be tighter and we should avoid ambiguous categories. If we are seeing them as bibliographic structure, then that's an entirely different list. -- ------------------------------------- Karen Coyle Digital Library Specialist http://www.kcoyle.net Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913 --------------------------------------


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main MODS page

LISTSERV.LOC.GOV CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager