Date:         Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:31:23 -0800
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Foster Zhang <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Title element and subtitles (typo corrected)
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>,
          [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I agree that subtitle is very useful for search and retrieval, it can be
identified by many ways instead of creating a new element called subtitle.
For example, there is nothing wrong to put subtitle in an additional title
element, or use of ISBD punctuation, so the software knows where to pick it
up for double index.

Most of us are coming from library background and familiar with MARC and
AACR2 so that we can request more for bibliographic information related
requirements into MODS. However, think about if we need to add digital
contents which could be sound, images, 3D that also will have some very
specific needs for descriptive data. We need to balance and make MODS simple
enough yet useful for all kind of the contents.

I agree with most of you that we need to define what MODS is for, if it is
to mimic MARC standard, we probably better look for something else for
generic descriptive metadata object standards.

Foster Zhang

ps. the discussion on listserv should always be personal opinion, if it is
representing my employer's view, I will state so.

===============================================
Systems Department         (650) 725-7924
Green Library East, 2nd Fl.(650) 723-3038 (fax)
Stanford University        [log in to unmask]
Stanford, CA  94305-6069   library.stanford.edu




-----Original Message-----
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Roy Tennant
Sent: 2002?12?3?(???) 11:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] Title element and subtitles


On the title/subtitle issue I invoke the first rule of granularity
(stated here for the first time): More is better. That is, I don't
think I've ever regretted chopping up my metadata into too many pieces,
but I have frequently regretted not doing so. The main problem I see is
that use of a subtitle field is basically unenforceable, and will
therefore undoubtedly lead to uneven application. If I cannot be
assured that all records with which I must deal use the subtitle field
whenever appropriate, then I will be unable to consistently treat the
subtitle differently than the title (e.g., place below the title in
smaller type, etc.), which will in some cases render the separate field
moot. But having said all that, I would still be in favor of a subtitle
field, since without the capability of identifying the subtitle we will
render impossible some display and processing options.
Roy Tennant