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  May 2002

METS May 2002

Subject:

working towards first practice

From:

Merrilee Proffitt <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 17 May 2002 14:42:49 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

All,

A while back, Jerry encouraged some of us to get together, talk about "best
practice" for METS, and report back what we found out.  Well, we haven't
discovered a lot, but we are working towards figuring it out together.  We
have decided that it's too early for Best Practice Guidelines, (upper
case), so we are aiming for first practices, or lower case bpg.  Here are
my minutes from a meeting spurred by geographic fortune.  There is a lot of
work to be done, and we are hoping that others will pitch in.  We will
report back from time to time.

Best,

Merrilee

Notes for METS "best practice guidelines" meeting, 7 May 2002

Attending:
Stanford: Nancy Hoebelheirich, Michael Olson,
Berkeley: Lynne Grigsby-Standfill (UCB Library), Guenter Waibel (Berkeley
Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive)
RLG: Merrilee Proffitt, Ricky Erway, Robin Dale, Fae Hamilton, Judy
Gerstle, Mike Sanderson, Anne Van Camp

Briefly noted: Bruce Washburn, Bill Washington, Judith Bush, Linda West,
Susan Yoder

Goal of the meeting: to see if any or all of the represented institutions
(Berkeley, Stanford, RLG) have shared approaches, and to see if there is
enough commonality between these organizations to begin work on first
practice documents.

Following introductions, each institution discussed their current and
perspective future use of METS.

RLG: "owns" one collection (Marriage, Women, and the Law), in the position
of converting collections from a multiplicity of sources for use in
services.  Right now, the focus is on using METS to support display of
complex objects.  RLG is also trying to look forward to having data
contributors give more than just derivative surrogate files and descriptive
metadata in order to create METS objects suitable for digital
archiving.  Currently, RLG is using METS for data rescue or data triage and
would like to move beyond this.  Have experimented with producing different
viewers for different objects.  Struggling with the idea of creating two
(or more?) types of METS documents, one for service delivery and one for
archiving.  The beauty and the danger of using links (METS document
pointing out) and the beauty and danger of wrapping all metadata and files
(very large files, difficult to update, impossible to serve out).  This was
a theme that was touched on by all meeting participants, and clearly and
area for more exploration and discussion.  RLG (and others, it sounds like)
may not be using METS directly for viewers, but instead decomposing METS
documents for use by viewer software.

Stanford: currently working with one very large collection (2.5 millions
pages, mostly scanned page images, also includes photos).  Struggling with
bundling the data files that represent the collection in a large METS
object, with EAD serving as a hub document with pointers into the METS
document for lower-level information.  Focus is more on developing best
practice than on developing tools.  Idea of having different ratings for
collections, with some treated at a very low level (strucMap, fileInv, some
additional minimal metadata for functionality), others being prepared for
digital archiving (with a richly defined AIP).

Berkeley: lots of MOA2 documents, converting to METS in the near future.  A
range of projects, from producing core METS document (structMap + fileInv)
to link scanned table of contents and index pages to MARC records, to more
complex objects (scanned pages, transcription files, audio files).  Working
on a variety of tools, that produce MOA2 objects, a MOA2 viewer  all to be
adapted to METS soon.  CDL has a pending grant proposal out to create a
digital repository for all nine campuses.  Using METS for everything,
packaging metadata even with single data files.  Undertaking data rescue on
previously digitized collections (no technical metadata or variable
technical metadata).  Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive has a tool
that produces XML as part of imaging workflow: EAD, MOA2, TEI.  Want to be
able to export out to desired formats, in order to contribute to consortial
projects such as RLG Cultural Materials.  Concerns with evolving extension
schemas.  For audio and video, when is it best to use SMIL, MPEG7, when is
it best to use METS?  Guenter chairs a group under the OAC/CDL that is
grappling with issues of interest to this group, and agreed to share
documentation as it is developed.  This group agreed to give feedback to
Guenter.

Discussion of future steps and goals:

There seemed to be plenty of work that could be done, both by members of
this group and by others.  Some potential deliverables identified by the group:

Decision tree/roadmap document
Best practice for fileInv/StructMap
Extension schemas
         Required elements, mapping
Viewer specs
Discussion of: pointing vs. embedding; link management; data update and
version control
Training/education

Of these, the most desirable/easily accomplished seemed to be development
of a "Road Map" document, which would help guide new users or those
approaching the standard with some useful advice about what they would need
to know or think about before approaching METS.  Merrilee agreed to oversee
development of this document.

The second task that the group decided to take on was development of best
practice for Native METS, or the fileInv/structMap for non-time based
materials, (i.e. page turned, potentially hierarchically structured
documents, book-like objects).  Lynne agreed to take on this, given enough
example documents (everyone agreed to pitch in and share examples of these
components with her).

Nancy agreed to develop a third document, a decision tree for evaluating
available extensions schemas for descriptive metadata (Dublin Core, MODS,
etc.).

None of these documents is seen as being an end-all, be-all, and are meant
to stimulate community discussion and eventually understanding of working
best practice.  Each document would be made available for wide review and
discussion, and could be revised or re-written as needed.

Other tasks were viewed as larger, more complicated, and more appropriate
for the larger community.  RLG has an interest in viewer development, and
in sharing approaches with others, and could potentially host a small
meeting for those actively engaged in viewer development.


Merrilee Proffitt
Research Libraries Group -- www.rlg.org
1200 Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
voice: +1-650-691-2309 -- [log in to unmask]

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

December 2021
November 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
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