Hi, Andreas Wagner wrote:
Just out of curiosity: What are your reasons for preferring this over TEI:
MODS was a logical choice mostly my background (scientific publishers => MARC databases => MODS), and that BruceD'Arcus liked it. Btw, his blog is full of bibliographic articles, if you are interested: http://community.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/ (but it looks like he has switched over to RDF now) I am not really set to any particular xml format, and there are more mainstream choices (risx comes to mind). But the few times I've had to work with TEI stuff I found that you can easily get much more than you bargained for. Bibliographic data is not easy on its own, and a format that allows (almost promotes) extra tags to be embedded also is not helping at all. Look at this: http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/html/ref-author.html Just the 'core' module is already pretty complex, but 'namesdates' and 'linking' are definately also required for a useful bibliographic database. The nice, consise examples in the TEI docs are misleading because <author>Lucy Allen Paton</author> is useless, more specifics are needed. We need at least this: <author> <persName> <forename>Lucy</forename> <forename>Allen</forename> <surname>Paton</surname> </persName> </author> But with the use of <persName>, there are suddenly a gazillion ways an author can encode the same name (and it does not preclude any of the other ways to encode a name). http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/html/ND.html#NDPER Etc. etc. Imagine having to support that in a simple context module. Cheers, Taco