Date:         Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:26:23 -0400
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: series and collections?
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

In developing MODS we considered series a type of related item and being
part of a collection another type of relationship. We thought they had
different characteristics, although some things in common. Being part of a
collection is indeed relatedItem type="host". That terminology came from
the MARC field for Host Item Entry (which is this same relationship; an
isPartOf parent/child relationship). I guess the terminology is a bit
confusing since we keep having to explain it.

Rebecca

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> > Bruce, if you keep thinking like this you're going to turn into a
> > cataloger  -- you might not want that.
>
> :-)
>
> > A series is a serial, so if you do a record for a series you code it as
> > a serial. An archival collection isn't "serial" in that sense it's a
> > finite unit.
>
> OK, and my point that series and collection could both thought of as
> belonging to a more abstract class of relatedItem?
>
> It just seems to me that "host" is appropriate here, but series is not
> (because that information should be captured within the relatedItem).
>
> Bruce
>