The Metadata Object Description Schema - MODS Resources

The Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) NISO Metadata Workshop May 20, 2004 Rebecca Guenther Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress What is MODS?       Metadata Object Description Schema Descriptive metadata standard (not for document markup) Initiative of Network Development and MARC Standards Office at LC Uses XML Schema Originally designed for library applications, but may be used for others A derivative of MARC Why MODS?    XML (Extensible Markup Language) is the markup for the Web Investigating XML as a new more flexible syntax for MARC element set Need for rich descriptive metadata in XML but simpler than full MARC, especially for complex digital library objects Potential Uses of MODS   As a rich (but not too rich) XML metadata format for emerging initiatives  Z39.50 Next Generation specified format  extension schema to METS  to represent metadata for harvesting (OAI)  As an interoperable core for convergence between MARC and non-MARC XML descriptions For original resource description in XML syntax using language based tags Advantages of MODS     Element set is richer than Dublin Core Hierarchy allows for rich description, especially of complex digital objects Element set is compatible with existing descriptions in large library databases Rich description that works well with hierarchical METS objects Features of MODS       Uses language-based tags Elements generally inherit semantics of MARC Elements particularly applicable to digital resources MODS does not assume the use of any specific rules for description Element descriptions are reused throughout the schema Use of XML schema allows for flexibility and availability of freely available tools MODS high-level elements           Title Info Name Type of resource Genre Origin Info Language Physical description Abstract Table of contents Target audience          Note Subject Classification Related item Identifier Location Access conditions Extension Record Info Status of MODS        Open listserv collaboration of self-selected possible implementors, LC coordinated (1st half 2002) First comment and use period: June – December 2002 Version 2.0 Feb. 2003-Dec. 2003 MODS version 3.0 now available Version 3.0 includes corrections and citation information for journal article Registration submitted to NISO, now being balloted Coming: a MODS for authorities called MADS LC uses of MODS     Describing electronic resources  AV project, web archiving Incorporation with XML resources  METS projects for digital resources (e.g. IHAS, Blackmun) OAI collections  LC offers MODS, MARCXML, DC simple Further use planned for lightweight descriptions for Web resources MINERVA at LC     MINERVA: LC’s web archiving project (based on specific themes) Exploring issues with born digital resources MODS used for descriptive metadata Election 2002 Web archive    Collaboration with Internet Archive, Webarchivist.org Selective collection of archived sites July-Nov. 2002 MODS records for each site Plan to use METS and develop profile for Web sites for 107th Metadata done in-house, more controlled  Other collections: 9/11, 107th Congress   Fields used in Minerva project      Title Name (structured form) Abstract Date captured Genre (value always “Web site”)      Physical description (file formats) Identifier (base URL) Language Access conditions/rights management Subject (keyword or LCSH if possible) Sample MODS record for Election 2002  Fran Ulmer web site record (XML) MODS projects      AV Prototype Project (Library of Congress)  Digital preservation for audio and video  Uses METS and MODS with focus on metadata University of California press  Using METS with MODS for freely available ebooks California Digital Library  Digitization of archival materials Other METS projects as descMD section MusicAustralia  MODS as exchange format between National Library of Australia and ScreenSoundAustralia Bibliographic citations Additions to MODS 3.0 to allow for output of bibliographic citations  Parsed elements to generate OpenURL  Stylesheet to output citation in particular citation format  Differences between MODS and Dublin Core    MODS has structure  Names  Publication information (originInfo)  Related item  Subject MODS is more compatible with library data  Semantics  Conversions  Relationships between elements Includes record management (administrative metadata) information Choosing MODS for descriptive metadata MODS is particularly useful for  compatibility with existing bibliographic data  embedded descriptions in relatedItem  Rich, hierarchical descriptions that work well with METS structural map  “out of the box” schema; can use for local elements and to bring in external elements from other schemas Conclusions •MODS was developed as a rich descriptive metadata standard that works well with other XML standards/initiatives •Provides a descriptive metadata standard intermediate in richness between Dublin Core and MARC 21 (or other specialized descriptive metadata standard) •Although a derivative of MARC, MODS has wide potential application as a rich descriptive metadata standard for various needs •XML tools allow for easy transformations (made available by LC) For further information http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods