What is METS

1

The Metadata Object Description Schema
(MODS) NISO Metadata Workshop May 20, 2004
Rebecca Guenther Network Development and MARC
Standards Office Library of Congress
2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
MINERVA at LC

• MINERVA LCs 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
• Other collections 9/11, 107th Congress
• Plan to use METS and develop profile for Web
  sites for 107th
• Metadata done in-house, more controlled

11
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)

12
Sample MODS record for Election 2002

• Fran Ulmer web site record (XML)

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
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

16
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
• ltpartgt
• ltdetailgt
• ltextentgt
• ltdategt
• lttextgt

17
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

18
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 ltextensiongt for
  local elements and to bring in external elements
  from other schemas

19

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)

20

For further information
http//www.loc.gov/standards/mods