Date:         Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:31:22 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Barbara B Tillett <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: alternate personal names in MODS?
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline

Bruce - One of the trends in future cataloging codes is to take metadata from whatever source, as is, and to build on that to meet the FRBR identify, select, and obtain tasks, with controlled access points and uncontrolled keywords for access to meet the 'find' task.  The 'controlled access points' would be controlled in authority records non-redundantly, but there would be the need to provide the "roles" for relationships between the bibliographic description (citation?) and agents (as well as the controlled names for works/expressions - now done as uniform titles) in a better way than we do now. 

Taking "citation" information would be part of that grabbing of descriptive metadata for the manifestation, so if you're working on automatic generation of the citation, isn't that part of the same thing?

There is another aspect of 'citation' in future cataloging rules, that is, naming the works/expressions in a unique text string (now a uniform title, but hopefully in a compatible but better structure in the future). - Barbara

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/22/05 12:12 PM >>>
On 11/22/05, Barbara B Tillett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> So why don't we take the leap to RDF instead of MODS or MADS?  Do you already have an RDF structure worked out? - Barbara

Answering the why question is something I don't want to get into,
because it tends to tread on social commentary (e.g I don't think the
answer is technical). And technically, it would take massive revamping
of both MODS and MADS to do this, which I doubt will happen at this
point.

Given that FRBR and FRAR are similarly transgresive of tradition,
perhaps it's worth seeing that as a potential meeting point, as in:

http://vocab.org/frbr/core 

As for my own standpoint I've sort of come to the conclusion that our
citation needs are rather different than the needs of libraries.  I am
trying to push that OpenDocumen include DC and Qualified DC out of the
box, and provide a framework for predictable (RDF) extension.

In that case, I'd see the core DC-based metadata as supporting
probably 80% of our needs, and then we'd need to add some additional
structures, perhaps the biggest being for more detailed encoding of
agents (what we're discussing here).

Leigh Dodds (at Ingenta) and I were working on figuring a way forward
on the last one, but have not settled on a representation yet. 
Clearly the FRAR ought to provide some hints.

Bruce