MacKenzie Smith wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> Are your effots related or aligned in any way to the DCMI collections
> working group?
We are closely tracking the DCMI collections working group and have
corresponding with Pete Johnston, the chair of that group, on numerous
occasions. Our plan is to conform as closely as possible to their
developing profile, which I think we have done, at least to the extent
allowed by the constraints of our own IMLS Collection Registry project.
> I think one of their deliverables is a schema for collection descriptions,
> although I don't think they plan to involve METS directly in that.
> So having a METS profile for collections seems interesting, but it would be
> a good idea if the contents conformed to emerging
> best practice as defined by this DCMI effort, no?
Yes, we are in total agreement. At the same time I posted the message
to METS, I posted a similar request for comments at the DCMI Collection
Why I think this approach is interesting is that METS seems to allow us
to combine together metadata that conforms to any number of other
profiles into a common package and express relationships between the
entities which are being described by those different metadata profiles.
Thus, in one METS package we have metadata that conforms to the DCMI
Collection Description Profile, but we also have metadata that conforms
to other profiles for such things as describing people, institutions, or
I guess what I am saying is that having a METS Collections Description
Profile does not compete or detract from the DCMI Collection Description
profile. It defines a way to package up DCMI Collection Descriptions
and all of the related descriptions which might be referenced by the
DCMI Collection Description.
Hope this helps explain some of our rational.
> At 04:12 PM 2/28/2005 -0600, Thomas G. Habing wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Here at UIUC we have several ongoing projects where collection
>> description plays a major role, and we are in the process of developing
>> a number of closely related collection description metadata schemas for
>> those projects. An example of one of those schema can be found at:
>> You can see that the schema is composed of several related entities,
>> such as collection, person, institution, project, and subcollections.
>> The reason I am posting is because we have developed a METS profile for
>> bundling the descriptions of these various entities and their
>> relationships to each other into a single METS file. A brief
>> description of the profile as well as links to the pertinent XML Schema
>> and sample METS files can be found at:
>> As far as we can tell there are no other similar METS profiles to what
>> we are proposing, and we would be very interested in any ideas or
>> opinions from the METS community based on what we have done.
>> If there is enough interest, and what we have makes sense, we would be
>> willing to develop and register a formal METS profile for collection
>> Kind regards,
>> Tom Habing
> MacKenzie Smith
> Associate Director for Technology
> MIT Libraries
> Building E25-131d
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue
> Cambridge, MA 02139
> [log in to unmask]