Jerome McDonough schrieb:
> I'm going to risk having this conversation delve into the murkiest, blackest
> of philosophical holes and mention that it was this kind of problem that made
> me start thinking that the logical/physical distinction was ultimately somewhat
Well maybe we should define, what we mean with logical, physical and
what has it to do with structure... Maybe we are misunderstanding each
> I'm currently of the opinion>
> that 1. logical structure
> and does not exist separate from physical structure;
Why can't both structures be separate?
I see in the physical structure as something which comes from the
analogue world and was a necessity to store the contents (e.g. in on a
page, leaf etc...). We have even the possibility to describe the exact
position of the context on a page - so we even have sub-entities (areas)
in the physical structure.
Now we are moving to a digital world. Contents is only stored in bits
and bytes in files. Files which are referenced to or included in a
METS-document (e.g. TEI files or something similar) and Files which do
not have a retrodigitized sourde but are already born digital.
These document have a logical structure but not a physical one - so
logical structures exist seperatly from physical ones.
> 3. instead
> of that approach, we should be thinking about what our users want to see
> when they
> look at a METS object (hence, a modified Epicureanism where our users' pleasure
> is the highest good), and encode a structMap that supports what they want
> to do.
So we ask: Who/What is a user? I assume, that the user is the person who
is reading/viewing the material on the screen.
In my eyes the enduser is not and should not be the central point when
describing a format for a digital library. It's more or less the
question how we could/would present the METS-file (or METS-object) to
the user, what kind of navigation possibilites we will offer him. Or do
you really plan to give the METS-file to the user?
In my view it is the task of the software to rearrange the METS-object
in a way so that the enduser may work with it as he would expect.
What should be one of the central points when developing a format is
redundany and consistancy. In my view it is more the technical aspects
being important for a data format as METS.
> The painful but obvious fall out for this type of thinking is that there is
> no general
> answer to the question 'how to deal with drawings.' It depends on what
> your users
> want, or, for you more self-centered Epicureans out there, what you want
> your user
> to experience.
Sure - somewhen everybody has to define for him/herself how far do we
want to go with structural metadata, what are the benefits from it are
those benefits worth spending a lot of money for creating structural
But I think this is something everybody should decide on its own. For a
common used data format it would be the best to support as many demands
as possible. That's why I really would like METS to support logical and
physical structures including a possibility for linking to each other.
Markus Enders, GDZ