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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  August 2001

METS August 2001

Subject:

METS change proposal for September meeting

From:

MacKenzie <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:00:59 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (89 lines)

Hi all,

Below is a write up of a possible change to the METS schema that I would
like to discuss at the meeting in September. It's change to the
linking elements that we (Harvard) would like, but which has some big
side effects so it warrants discussion. It's a long posting, so if you
don't care about linking elements in METS (and many won't) then you can
hit delete now. Thanks,

MacKenzie/

*************************************************************************
PROPOSED METS CHANGE FOR LINKING ELEMENTS

There are three external linking elements in the current METS schema:
mdRef, FLocat, mptr. The first is in the DescMD section, and points
to an external location for relevant descriptive metadata. The second
is in the FileGrp (i.e. inventory) section, and points to a component
file of the METS digital object. The third is in the StructMap
section, and points to an external parent or child METS file.

mdRef and FLocat are defined similarly: uncontrolled, string-type
elements with a required LOCTYPE attribute indicating the type of
pointer (URN, URL, DOI, etc.).

mptr was originally defined differently -- as an empty element using the
new xlink syntax for its attributes. These included:
xlink:type  - the XLink type, in this case, simple.
xlink:href  - the URI for the resource.
xlink:role  - a machine-readable description of the role of the resource
              identified by the XLink.  The following convention has been
              established for describing the roles of METS resources:
              "container" - indicates a resource which
                            can be abstractly considered to
                            contain this object, as in the map
                            example.
              "content" - indicates a subsidiary resource
                          contained by this object
              "related" - indicates a resource for which neither
                          container nor contained provides an
                          an adequate description of the
                          relationship to the current object

In the last round of changes the mptr definition was changed to be
like that of mdRef and FLocat elements. This was done to improve the
schema's consistency -- in general, a good thing.

But in looking forward to new uses of METS, and to new communities of
METS users, we wonder if making these elements follow the original
FLocat model isn't the wrong direction -- maybe changing all three to
the xlink model would be better? Here are a few reasons:

1. xlink is a W3C recommendation and is becoming the standard for
   linking syntax in XML documents. In the future, METS users who are
   familiar with XML will expect to use xlink syntax for links.

2. other DTD/schema standards in the digital library community use the
   xlink sytnax, namely EAD and TEI.

3. xlink offers the possibility of better link functionality in the
   future, supporting things like bi-directional and out-of-line
   links. While nothing would stop a METS developer from supporting
   this functionality with the current uncontrolled syntax, it
   wouldn't be possible to take advantage of new tools supporting
   xlink as they become available.

The main problem with changing the mdRef and FLocat elements to use
xlink is the MOA2 -> METS migration. I know this would be a big issue
for Berkeley, and an immediate question is who else else has made use
of these two elements? And how difficult would it be to migrate these
elements to a new xlink-based syntax if such a migration is needed
anyway?

Finally, are there any compensating advantages to the uncontrolled
text definitions that these linking elements have now? Any good
reasons _not_ to go with the xlink syntax?

If we're going to suffer migration pain to adopt a more standardized
way of handling links, now is the time. But we shouldn't impose
unnecessary pain either. Hopefully we can reach some sort of decision
on this in September.

_____________________________________________________________________________
MacKenzie Smith                                   [log in to unmask]
Digital Library Program Manager                   phone: (617)495-3724
Office for Information Systems                    fax:   (617)495-0491
Harvard University Library                        %\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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