LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


PIG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  October 2005

PIG October 2005

Subject:

Re: mandatory elements

From:

jeroen bekaert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:35:16 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

>
> On Oct 19, 2005, at 6:17 AM, jeroen bekaert wrote:
>> I am afraid I do not agree. Making elements optional (or removing
>> elements
>> from the PREMIS XML Schema) because this would solve the redundancy
>> between PREMIS and METS is a bad way forward. PREMIS will be used in
>> conjunction with many technologies (including METS, MPEG-21 DIDL,
>> CCSDS
>> XFDU, etc.) and therefore should be defined independently of such
>> technologies.
>
> I don't really see a contradiction between maintaining independent
> design
> and insuring that your design plays well with others.  I think your
> suggestion
> below has some merit:

[jbekaert] I agree. Yet, changing the mandatory/optional occurence
constraints of PREMIS elements based on requirements imposed by the METS
community can hardly be categorized as 'independent design'.


>> Let me end with a constructive note. Instead of changing the PREMIS
>> Schema
>> based on practical issues resulting from its use with METS, one may
>> consider defining the PREMIS elements and attributes in a global
>> manner
>> (instead of defining them locally as is the case in the current
>> PREMIS XML
>> Schema). This would allow for the re-use of inidividual PREMIS
>> elements
>> and attributes, including XML fragments, in other technological
>> environments (including METS) when needed.
>
> but note that it is also a redesign of the schema to make it play
> well with
> others.  If we were to take a completely independent design approach, we
> wouldn't need to worry about interoperability, and we wouldn't need
> to make
> the change you suggest.  So the real issue is what changes have to be
> made
> to insure the schema's interoperability with a variety of other
> standards.
> Globalization of elements is one direction we should probably pursue,
> but even with
> global elements, I think the issues of what elements are mandatory
> and what
> are optional should be given some thought.  I'm increasingly of the
> opinion
> that schema are going to need to be as flexible as possible, and more
> restrictive aspects of their application is going to need to be
> handled through
> profiling mechanisms.

[jbekaert] Jerome, I think a difference should be made between
'flexibility' and - what you refer to as - 'interoperability with other
schemas'.

The global definition of PREMIS elements/attributes allows for the _reuse_
of those elements/attributes in other XML Schemas (i.e. Schemas from a
different namespace) in a very 'flexible' manner. This does not guarantee
'interoperability with other XML Schemas'. For example, given a few tweaks
in the METS Schema, the METS Schema could import PREMIS-specific elements
or attributes to replace current METS-specific functionality. E.g. the
premis:objectIdentifierValue element could be employed to replace the
mets:OBJID attribute; premis:relationshipTypes elements could be employed
to replace mets:StructMap functionality. The same is true wrt MPEG-21 DIDL
Descriptor attributes/elements. Let's call this PREMIS flexibility at
best.

Changing mandatory/optional occurence constraints based on METS related
issues is clearly an 'interoperability with other schemas' problem. Its
sole purpose is the trouble-free use of PREMIS in conjunction with METS
(only).

It should be clear that mandatory/optional contraints on PREMIS
elements/attributes should be dictated by the abstract PREMIS data
dictionary only. After all, isn't this why people define an abstract
model? See also the email sent by Ryan Chute on July 11 on this very list.

jeroen

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021
December 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager