Summary reaction to: MODS: The Metadata Object Description Schema

Citation: Guenther, Rebecca. (January 2003). "MODS: The Metadata Object Description Schema." portal: Libraries and the Academy 3(1): 137-150. IU Libraries online subscription.

The commentary from the editor describes problems the library community has found with Dublin Core. The lack of granularity desired in the library community is a major concern, but is a founding principle in DC. The developers wanted a metadata framework that would be easy to apply and would not require the skill of an information professional. Even though DC is simple to use, I do agree with the statement that due to the lack of standards and documentation, the application in a controlled library setting could become very expensive and labor extensive during the implementation phase. Utilizing a well documented metadata standard does save the library time and money in terms of documenting and implementation.

Guenther describes the uses and advantages of MODS and places this metadata schema as more detailed and descriptive than Dublin Core, but cheaper and easier to apply than MARC. She refers to MODS as a simpler MARC, which I think simplifies the matter too much. Although MODS was derived from MARC, I considered it more than simple MARC because of the reorganization of elements, and the addition of new elements absent in the MARC formats. The syntax is similar and MARC catalogers will find it familiar, but it’s still a different schema with unique advantages.

The element comparison chart was very useful in understanding how MODS and Dublin Core elements compare. The detailed discussion allows for comparisons between how bibliographic information is typically represented in MARC, DC, and MODS. Each discussion leads to the conclusion that mapping from MARC to MODS retains much more detail than mapping to DC. The ability to qualify elements in MODS provides a robust array of options for recording bibliographic information.

I do question the need for an xml schema MARC holdings information. I have noticed while working with online journals that many providers include summary screens with complete information about the availability of a journal. As more and more information is online, I wonder if maintaining local holdings information in the traditional way will become obsolete.

Overall I think the library community will benefit from having a robust, but easily applied xml based metadata framework.