LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


METS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  August 2001

METS August 2001

Subject:

Re: METS example

From:

Rick Beaubien <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:54:49 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Hi Alexander,

Nice to hear from you. I hope you don't mind my posting this response to
the entire METS list, as others may have the same question as you posed to
me. And also, this way Jerry and/or others can correct my mistakes...

You correctly note that in my sample METS document there are multiple
<dmdSec> elements, but only one <amdSec> element. This is because the
<dmdSec> is itself an <mdSecType>; the <amdSec> is not itself an
<mdSecType>; but rather it comprises 4 repeatable elements that are
mdSecTypes: <techMD>, <rightsMD>, <sourceMD> and <digiprovMD>. A <dmdSec>
can contain just a single unit of descriptive metadata (although it may
contain both an mdRef and an mdWrap element); and therefore <dmdSec> must
be repeated for each unique unit of descriptive metadata pertaining to a
METS object. But an <amdSec> element can encapsulate any number of unique
Administrative metadata units. The ADMID attributes of the <file> element
(under <fileGrp>) and <div> (under <structMap>) can refer directly to the
IDs associated with the relevant <techMD>, <rightsMD>, <sourceMD> and
<digiprovMD> elements under the encapsulating <amdSec> element.

Thus in my sample document, the file identified by ID=FID8 refers to 3
units of administrative metadata: ADM3, which is a unit of <techMD>
pertaining to how the image was captured; ADM6, which is a unit of
<rightsMD>; and ADM15, which is a unit of digiprovMD pertaining to the
master image from which the derivative image FID8 was derived. The file
identified by ID=FID9 also refers to 3 units of administrative metadata:
the techMD and rightsMD units are the same as for FID8 (ADM3 and ADM6
respectively). But the digiprovMD is different, as would be expected since
FID9 derives from a different master image.

While I hope that this clarifies how my example uses the dmdSec and admSec
elements, note that there are other valid ways of organizing administrative
metadata. I think that it would be perfectly valid to wrap each unique
administrative metadata unit in its own <admSec> element and have the ADMID
attributes of <file> and <div> refer to IDs at the admSec level. Or each
unique combination of <techMD>, <rightsMD>, <sourceMD> and/or <digiprovMD>
could be wrapped in an admSec element. Again under this handling, the ADMID
attributes of <file> and/or <div> would refer to IDS at the admSec
level. (Hopefully Jerry will confirm--or deny--that such uses of the
admSec would be valid). Also note that if I had used either of these
possibilities in my sample document, the document would have been
considerably longer. Wrapping all of the techMD, rightsMD, sourceMD and
digiprovMD elements within a single admSec element is the most economical
approach here, I think, and allows the various administrative metadata
units to be mixed and matched as needed to describe a <file> or <div> fully.

I hope this helps. Further comments and corrections are most welcome.

Rick Beaubien


At 02:42 PM 8/7/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Rick,
>
>I am working on mets example documents for the METAe project. I had a
>closer look to your example to find out how other people use METS and
>came across some problems.
>
>You use a DmdSec for each descriptive metadata set in the document.
>That's how I would like to use it too. But you use just one AmdSec and
>put all administrative metadata in there then referencing the data using
>the id in the subsections and not using the id of the AmdSec.
>
>This seams to be wrong because the documentation of the file element
>says:
>
>7. ADMID: IDREFS to administrative metadata sections in the METS
>document
> that correspond with this file
>
>Your way of using the AmdSec is also different from how you use the
>DmdSec. As they are named similar I think they should be used the same
>way.
>
>Am I wrong? Why did you choose this way of using the AmdSec?
>
>Regards
>
>Alexander
>
>
>----
>Alexander Egger
>
>project.service.bureau
>University of Innsbruck
>Innrain 52 / A-6020 Innsbruck / Austria
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Phone: +43 512 507 9055
>Fax: +43 512 507 2607
>
>http://meta-e.uibk.ac.at/
>http://www.literature.at/

Rick Beaubien
Lead Software Engineer, Research and Development
Library Systems Office
University of California, Berkeley 94720-6000
510-643-9776

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

November 2022
December 2021
November 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 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
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
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager