And I think a guiding questions in making these decisions needs to be: is
METS an appropriate framework for resource discovery? I would argue that
this is not a strength of the schema.
At 08:34 AM 5/13/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>On the exchange below, I'd just like to clarify Jerry's Pronouncement a
>Some folks who are not from the traditional archives community or the
>finding aids have been testing the use of EAD to describe collections from
>own communities. Examples are museums and some types of special collections.
>It is just possible that METS might provide a reasonable alternative to
>(not obvious, just possible). So while we don't endorse replacing EAD with
>where EAD is clearly the appropriate, and community endorsed, encoding
>there may be situations where a collection-level METS that describes one or
>digital item-level METS files would be perfectly fine.
>Thanks, now *I* feel better...
>>At 10:30 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Guenter Waibel wrote:
>>>This is the question I'm really curious about. A very similar
>>>question came up at an Online Archive of California Subcommittee
>>>meeting a couple of weeks back - how do you define where the EAD ends
>>>and where METS begins if you use them in conjunction? Both standards
>>>have the capability of describing a complex hierarchical structure
>>>and at least theoretically, you could actually replace the EADs
>>>function of hierarchically structuring a collection with a series of
>>>nested METS documents pointing to more METS documents. I'm not
>>>implying that it would be either wise or intellectually sound to do
>>>so, but through the mptr, it's definitely conceivable.
>>Official METS Editorial Board Pronouncement from On High:
>> METS should NOT, repeat, should NOT be used as a replacement
>> for EAD. Not now. Not *ever*! NEVER!!!!
>Associate Director for Technology
>77 Massachusetts Avenue
>Cambridge, MA 02139
>[log in to unmask]