LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


[email protected]


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  November 2009

PIG November 2009

Subject:

Re: PREMIS Implementation Fair feedback

From:

Peter McKinney <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:00:52 +1300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (142 lines)

Hi Rob,

In terms of the larger points you make we're definitely interested in
having conversations in these areas. A quick question; how much of the
information in the Safety Deposit Box has a PREMIS equivalent?  Is it a
big gap between PREMIS and the information you want to hold?

I've copied in your "minor" questions below and put a response to some
of them from my point of view based on experience at National Library of
New Zealand. Very happy indeed to discuss this further with anyone
interested. 

Best,

Pete


> 
> I also have a whole bunch of other, more minor questions, which I
list 
> below:
> 1. Why is it necessary to state whether an embedded object is a
FileStream 
> or a Bitstream?  Not sure why this helps since anything embedded has
to be 
> extracted by some method (and we may not know what that method is).

Here's a scenario to see if this covers what you're talking about. 
We have a bytestream that contains a bitstream. For example, an image
inside a word document. If we are trying to pull out that image from
Word, there will necessarily be some degree of transformation on the
image to make it into a filestream so it can exist as of itself. If
however, we are pulling out images from an ARC file then that image is a
filestream and no transformation is needed to be made as it can stand by
itself. 

Therefore for us, it would help to know if the object is a filestream
or bitstream. I guess there are a number of ways you could know this
though — for example, you may know by the format of the bytestream
that any objects inside it have to be bitstreams (or filestreams).


> 4. Modification date.  This is explicitly excluded in favour of a
creation 
> date.  I can see the reasoning (i.e. modifying a file really creates
a new 
> file).  However, in file systems this "creation" date is called "last

> modified date" so the naming is a little confusing.

We're trying to deal with this very issue right now. I would like to
see the opportunity to put both dates in. One solution for us right now
is to extend the metadata elements to include both creation and
modification date; the other is that most MD extractors obviously pull
out (many) dates, which for us are mapped to "significant properties"
[see below for more on this term within NLNZ]. 

From our view, the earliest date is very useful to track how old the
file may be — useful in risk, format ID'ing, etc. 

> 5. I'm not at all clear how to use "preservation level" or what is
the 
> point of it.  Can this be further explained?

We don't use it at all — all the content is considered to be of the
same preservation value.  I guess I can see a use though for
organisations that are offering a service to other organisations so that
the preservation analysts know they don't need to keep risk analysis for
those files marked with no preservation value, and do not need to
extract any technical metadata for them, etc. 

> 6. Why are properties called "significant properties"?  I'd just call

> these "properties": if they are "significant properties" depends on
the 
> context.

Totally agree that significant properties is a context sensitive term.
PREMIS describes them in the most accepted meaning by the preservation
community which is that they are properties "determined to be important
to maintain through preservation actions". 

We do not use them in this way. We see these properties as those
characteristics that we can use in four main ways:
1. To help us with risk analysis
2. To help us identify the formats more specifically
3. To help us pull together files that are the same for preservation
planning and execution
4. To help us evaluate and record what has happened across a
preservation action. 

They are not properties to us that must be maintained across an action.
That is to say, if we have a risky colour encoding (CIELab for example)
then it will be a property that has to change across the action in ord
er
to get rid of the risk. 

So yes, if we can't change the meaning of 'significant properties',
then as we use them they are just "properties".



> 7. Not clear why all of the creating application, environment,
software 
> and hardware entities are needed.  This information is usually
implied 
> from the format (via a registry) so why store it at all (as the
registry 
> is likely to be updated later with better information).

Creating application is important to us. We get it from the file or
from our digitisation uploads. Depending on how we get it, it is either
stored as a significant property or on the PREMIS element. To us it's
important because it can tell us why the file isn't conforming to what
we expect of the format (the application wrote something
'idiosyncratically').

We do not use PREMIS elements to note rendering information. 

> 10. Not clear what relationships between Objects are helpful.  Are
there 
> examples?

We will be using relationships between files and reps that have been
created from a preservation and relating them back to the files and reps
they were migrated from. This allows us to give full transparency across
the action, particularly important where we're moving from one-to-many
or from many-to-one in the action.

We're looking right now to see if we want to use it for IEs that have
representations that are not hierarchical in nature. For example, PREMIS
uses the example of the TEI and the images. Do we want to note that the
relationship between the two is that the TEI is a transcript of the
image?

> 12. It would be useful to add the ability to record whether a file is

> valid or well-formed against its format.

Totally agree. We record this information in specific MD elements. It
would be good if these were in PREMIS too. 

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

February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
March 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
January 2022
December 2021
October 2021
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