In the better late than never category, I've tried to think of any problems
proposal and can't, except the general caveat that it *is* possible to take
generalization to an absurd extreme, however in this case it makes sense to me
to go for a general solution over a specific one since I agree that there
other checksum algorithms and we shouldn't make invalid presumptions.
Could we, pehaps, have an optional attribute of checksumtype, and if that
attribute is missing, but there is a checksum, assume it's an MD5?
And what on earth would the benefit of a checksum create date be?
At 09:57 AM 3/5/2002 -0500, Robin Wendler wrote:
>One of the general questions that came out of the recent
>(and soon to be documented, I swear) meeting on technical metadata for
>audio was about the METS <checksum> attribute of the <file> element.
>Right now, this is defined explicitly as MD5, but there are now and
>undoubtedly will continue to be other checksum algorithms in use. We were
>wondering whether it would be better/possible to generalize this in METS,
>providing for the checksum type, value, and create date. It seems better
>to raise this now, rather before we hit the big Version 1.0.
>What do others think about this?
>Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
>Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
>Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
>Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
Associate Director for Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
[log in to unmask]