On 13 June 2011 18:39, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Mike Taylor >> Any thoughts on how I might use this to express the copyright status of >> the item's abstract? > > One way, that I have heard discussed (though I don't know if anyone is doing > it) is to represent the abstract as part of a related item (type = > "constituent"). The related item could consist of just the abstract and the > copyright statement.
Thanks, Ray. That makes sense, but seems a bit verbose. At the moment, since the <accesscondition> element's "type" attribute is uncontrolled, I am just using "copyright" for the main copyright statement and "copyrightabstract" for the copyright of the abstract. On 13 June 2011 17:45, Montoya, Gabriela <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not use PREMIS? Here at UCSD, we recognized that MODS was not sufficient > to capture our copyright information, although we do use MODS for our > descriptive metadata. Thanks for this. An interesting alternative, but not one that we can switch to at this stage. It's MODS or MODS+extensions for us. -- Mike.
