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  December 2001

METS December 2001

Subject:

Detail query re: filegrp

From:

Carl Fleischhauer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:53:36 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (57 lines)

This is the first of what I hope will be a series of messages from the LC
audio-visual team pertaining to details of metadata.  My colleagues and I
are trying to work thru some stuff one chunk at a time.

Today's msg is sent with Jerry in mind.  At the Pittsburgh meeting we
discussed increasing the number of elements in filegrp to permit folks to
produce streamlined METS documents by omitting TECHMD but not lose
critical file-level data.  I went back to our "all files" element set to
see what we might nominate for filegrp and what we would agree to leave in
TECHMD.

I studied the METS gamma version.  Assuming that the "date" ("event"?)
element in filegrp can have attributes (e.g., created, modified,
accessed), the following elements are the ORPHANS left from our "allfiles"
schema.  The names and definitions below are taken from our relational
database data dictionary; in XML, things like "checksum" would be elements
with attributes, natch.

-- byte_order:  The order of bit significance in a byte from left to
right.  (Big and little endian, Motorola vs. Intel, etc.)

-- the checksum trio:
-- -- checksum_value Checksum value of the file, e.g.,
57edf4a22be5ac49da2e27b67a.
-- -- checksum_type Type of checksum algorithm employed, e.g., MD-5,
RSA-MD4, HC Checksum algorithm, etc.
-- -- checksum_datetime Creation date and time of the checksum, e.g.,
1997-04-22 (date only), 1997-04-22T19:20+01:00 (full expression), etc.

-- security: Type of encryption or other security used in the file, e.g.,
symmetric, assymetric, RSA encryption, Rabin encryption etc.

-- watermark: Type of watermark used in the file, e.g., Digimarc,
Giovanni, Alpha-Tec, StirMark, etc. SBCS(255) NONE

-- use:  Use of the file, e.g., [Library of Congress terms, displayed for
end-users] Master, Service High, Service Low, Preview.

QUESTION 1: Are any of these nominees for filegrp or shall we agree to
leave them in TECHMD?

QUESTION 2:  If this whole bunch should stay in TECHMD, should we add them
as a block to all four extension schemas or continue to have a separate
"allfiles" schema?  This is asked to the METS group because we share an
interest in building an application profile that we all like.

Carl Fleischhauer

PS: There is also an orphaned field we have called either
compression_codec or compression_method.  For this, we were not thinking
of the value "MP3" but rather "Frauenhofer" or "Sorenson" for the specific
coding algorithm used.  I suppose something like this would also be useful
if you were anal enough to want to track the quantization tables you used
to make a JPEG file.  My mood today is to leave this one in audio and
video TECHMD, and I plan to make it part of my coming dialog with our
colleagues at Michigan State.  Interim comments are welcome, however.

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

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