On 13 June 2011 18:39, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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.