Date:         Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:22:28 -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: alternate personal names in MODS?
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

>On 11/22/05, Barbara B Tillett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Regarding multiple titles and not multiple names - the MODS record would record how the manifestation represents the information - you'd only include multiple titles found on the manifestation (not all possible titles given over the various expressions and manifestations over time - that would go in an authority record).  Similarly for names - in a MODS record you'd only be using the names found on the manifestation (which indeed could be full or shortened forms, but hopefully the same name and not all the person's alternative names).
>>    
>>
That's the cataloging ideal, but in fact librarians have used the 
multiple titles to record "access" titles, that is titles that users 
might want to search on but aren't exactly what's on the item. So we 
have fudged a bit in the interest of user service, or at least that's 
how it looks to me. (And I think the cataloging rules allow you to 
include a title that users might be expected to search on, but my AACR 
skills are way rusty.)

But that's not much here nor there....

While the use of MADS to record information about the person makes some 
sense, it really is a system design decision, not a logical requirement 
of the data itself. I can imagine situations where it might be desirable 
to create a bibliographic record that includes all of the person 
information along with all of the work/manifestation information. A 
generic markup language for bibliographic data (which MODS is not) 
should allow such a record to be created, as well as allowing the person 
data to be stored separately if one desires. If you think about the 
difference between a communications format and a database format, you'd 
want the communications format to be able to accommodate all of the data 
you need about all of the different facets of the bibliographic record 
in a single communication, while the database format will do some 
normalization (in the RDMS sense) to reduce redundancy. If you're 
sending data to someone and you don't know details about their 
environment (do they have a separate authority file? Do they already 
have this authority record?) you want to have the option to send them 
complete data. This doesn't mean that you have to always send person 
data in the record, nor that you can't send person data separately. What 
we need is the flexibility to send the appropriate data.

Even in the library environment, I think it has at times been awkward 
communicating both bibliographic and authority data separately and 
getting them to reconnect correctly at their destination. It would be 
great to be able to send them packaged together.

kc

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------