Jerry's answer-from-beyond-the-grave (at least that's how
I'm feeling at the moment):
> But for us METS folks: where is the best home for this information
> abouttargets and calibration tones? With other techMD, as
> suggested by the
> NISO document? Or in digiprov? Since digiprov is not likely to
> be used
> by many METS practitioners, my mood is to say techMD.
This definitely sounds like the kind of information we intended
digiprov to hold: information helpful in allowing scholars/others
determine what the original might have looked/sounded like, including
definitive information about transformation processes involved
AND processes employed which allow you to successfully map
from pre-transformation to post-transformation. Other comment:
digiprov certainly won't be used if we don't even use it for
what it was intended for. I think we should be more concerned
at this point about trying to arrange the information in ways
that make sense; whether anyone wants to use particular portions
when that process is done is a separate issue.
On another issue, Merrilee, if you're out there listening,
could you ask Robin Dale if there was a reason byte order
got left out of the tech. metadata in the NISO dictionary?
I think Carl's previous question about 'do we use NISO if
NISO has a big hole' is one we need to look at, and I'm a
bit surprised that NISO left that hole. I'd be interested
in the reasoning there.