Date:         Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:11:14 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[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; charset=US-ASCII

MODS <genre> allows for values from any list (or no list) and that list is
identified in the authority attribute. The authority attribute tells you
to go to a list of source codes to identify the list from which the value
was taken. This is an LC maintained list and we add source codes to it all
the time upon request. The MARC genre list is one of the many possible
sources for genre values. We plan to keep that in sync with the various
elements in MARC that express genre. Thus, we wouldn't keep adding to the
MARC genre list unless we also added to MARC. You can also use genre
without specifying any authority list, but then the terms would
essentially be uncontrolled.

Since LC is establishing URIs for its metadata elements, there will be a
URI for the list itself, as well as a URI for each value on the list. I
think it is a good idea to allow for a URI as a value for authority. With
the current schema, this would validate, but the note under
xsd:documentation says to use the list of source codes specified. So we
are changing that note to say that the value of authority could be taken
from the source code list or it could be a URI. The value of the genre
element can also be a URI if the list itself allows for them (no need to
change anything in the current schema for this).

Rebecca


On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Houghton,Andrew wrote:

> > From: Bruce D'Arcus [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Subject: Re: [MODS] genres and governments records
> >
> > On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 10:27 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >
> > If we want the genre element in MODS to include any genre from any
> > metadata, then it should be a text field, not a controlled list. A
> > controlled list only makes sense if you have some reason to keep
> > control, i.e. there's some particular meaning to the list that you don't
> > want to see violated.
>
> This was one of my complaints about MODS, over a year ago, and indicated
> on this list in several messages.  MODS takes too much from MARC-21 with
> the idea that only its controlled lists can be used and they are hard
> coded into the Schema without anyway to use alternate controlled lists,
> without directly modifying the XML Schema.  Many metadata communities will
> just not use MARC-21 code lists since they have their own and thus will
> create their own metadata formats rather than reusing MODS.
>
> So I will reiterate the direction that I would like to see MODS move
> towards: controlled lists in MODS should be URI based or use a URI for
> the "controlling authority" along with the term from the controlled
> list, so that other metadata communities can plug in their own controlled
> lists.  Doing that would still be in alignment with CORES work that LC has
> already undertaken.
>
>
> Andy.
>