Date:         Fri, 9 May 2003 11:10:28 -0400
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Citation details
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

On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 10:04  AM, Suzanne Pilsk wrote:

> I need my scientists to be able to cite the digitized version ,
> reference
> the old physical piece and let everyone know that it is part of the
> giant
> monographic set.

Ah, here's the missing piece of information I was looking for.  So you
are indeed interested in citation as I meaning it.  Yeah, so they need
to cite an individual digital record, which (I *think*) needs to use
<relatedItem> to tie to both the original physical record, AND to place
these records within the hierarchy of the collection.  So, yes, you
need to break these up, and your scientists ought to only ever
reference one object at a time.

BTW, my whole interest in all of this is a way to couple MODS with a
modified version of the citestylex formatting DTD.  Files defined with
this spec tell a formatting engine how to assemble formatted references
from the raw data.  The DTD is part of the RefDB project:

        http://refdb.sourceforge.net

The author is currently evaluating moving his data model to MODS.  But
the big goal is to have these files be usable in any application that
chooses to support them.

Bruce