I think we're all painfully aware that the best we can do at the
height of our powers, no matter how much coffee we pour down our
gullets :-), will be a lower-case best practise document. How could
you possibly define best practise when the practise, good or bad, has
barely started? :-) All of this just to say that I completely agree
with Jerry - I think pooling local guidelines (which I happened to
term best practise) is what we're after, and then an upper-case Best
Practise would definitely be an endeavour of a different scale which
could develop based on those initial local guides. Let's gather
offline and see what we can come up with!
At 1:08 PM -0800 3/26/2002, Nancy Hoebelheinrich wrote:
>Hi, Jerry, et al:
>Seems like a very reasonable plan (although that shouldn't stop you from
>having more coffee if you'd like, heavens!) I think it's a great idea to
>reconnoiter offline to figure out what those of us who've spoken up about
>needing guides are really thinking we need. At this stage, it may well be a
>more advanced tutorial & "first" practices as opposed to "best" practices,
>or a registry of planned uses for contact purposes, for instance. We could
>bring the results of those discussions back to the list when we've got
>something to suggest. I understand that Stanford has some facilities for
>visual networking that I will explore to see whether the appointed
> anointed? self destructive?) group could use that for an offline meeting.
>I'll report back to the small group members unless they let me know they're
>not interested or have a better idea, of course. Make sense?
>Metadata Unit Coordinator, Cat Dept
>3rd Floor, Meyer Libr
>Stanford Univ Librs/Acad Info Rsrcs
>Stanford CA 94305-6004
>phone: 650.725.6843 fax: 650.725.1120
>[log in to unmask]
>From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jerome McDonough
>Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:59 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [METS] fledgling METS Best Practise?
>At 09:14 AM 3/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>I think we're working on parallel courses. At MATRIX, we've been
>>investigating and implementing OAIS for about a year now. We're certainly
>>planning on using METS in various Information Package roles, so we'd be
>>interested in participating in the development of a METS Best Practices.
>>projects tend to be distributed across several countries, with partners of
>>various backgrounds and training, and we would be both eager and pleased to
>>share practices as they develop. We have a pressing need for such a guide
>>well as an interest in helping to develop it.
>>So I find myself echoing Nancy - I'll volunteer us to work with the
>>community on developing a guide, but how do we go about coordinating a
>I'm somewhat concerned that we don't get too far ahead of ourselves here.
>I definitely agree that it would be a good thing for people in the community
>to start exchanging information on local practices with regards to
>METS, but we are still in a phase which I can only characterize as
>and R&D with regards to using METS for practical work. I think we don't
>have enough experience with METS at this point to define what 'Best'
>a capital 'B' might be.
>This is not to say that I think such a document is a bad idea; I just don't
>us as quite ready to declare definitively what best practices are. As a
>towards getting there, I think it would be an excellent idea for
>are using METS in their local systems and who are willing to provide some
>documentation regarding local METS practices to write up a document
>their local practices and send it to Morgan for including on the METS
>When those documents are available for the community to review, I think
>we can start looking at what people are doing similarly/differently and
>making more informed recommendations about best practices.
>It might hel