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:

comments about the proposed METS standard

From:

"M. Josephine Crawford" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 24 May 2002 16:10:17 -0500

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines) , A Response to the METS Proposed Standard1.doc (84 lines) , Unknown Name (11 lines)

Greetings,

On behalf of the Digital Library Working Group, University Libraries,
University of Minnesota, I am forwarding some comments about the proposed
METS Standard.  These comments were written by Charles F. Thomas, Digital
Projects Coordinator at the University of Minnesota, and then reviewed by
the Digital Library Working Group.

I will send our comments embedded as text below, and attach a MS Word file
with the same information.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the METS standard.

Josephine Crawford, chair
Digital Library Working Group
University Libraries
University of Minnesota


                                *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *       *


A Response to the METS Proposed Standard
From the University of Minnesota Libraries
Digital Library Working Group
05/21/02

The Metadata Encoding Transmission Standard (METS) offers an extensible and
scalable model for organizing metadata about digital objects. Its ancestral
roots in the Making of America project are apparent; METS offers a rational
solution for managing large bodies of individual electronic files that are
closely interrelated. In particular, we see METS as a vital precursor to
next-generation presentation and navigation tools for digital objects such
as digitized books and other information-bearing-objects that consist of
many discrete parts. METS is flexible in that it permits any xml-based
metadata schema to be employed within its "wrapper" structure. The creators
of METS also have incorporated features that may be of benefit in other
functions such as digital archiving.

We do offer two constructive criticisms for the Digital Library Federation.
The first is that METS is based entirely upon an XML Schema Description
(XSD). This choice is understandable, XML Schema are themselves XML-based
and hold the promise of easier data and data structure interchange.
However, we would suggest that a Document Type Definition (DTD)  version of
the METS standard co-exist with the XSD statement of its structure. XML
Schema undoubtedly offer much, but a large body of middle-of-the-road
pragmatists will hesitate to adopt XML Schema at this time, because of its
recent vintage and perceived instability. DTDs, conversely, are much more
established as a way to define structure for encoding. If the XSD version
of METS took advantage of some of the advantages XML Schema offer, such as
data-typing, then this would not be possible. However, since METS is
designed to be a simple, flexible wrapper for metadata (and potentially
even digital object content), a co-existing DTD-based statement of the METS
structure and rules should promote faster adoption among the XML
communities who still prefer DTDs.

Our second comment is closely related to the first. The METS overview and
tutorials frequently mention the capability of METS to actually wrap
Base-64 binary content into the metadata descriptions, for such purposes as
digital archiving. Strategies for permanently associating metadata with
digital objects have continued at least since the earliest discussion that
led to the Dublin Core metadata standard. To date, we have witnessed
multiple approaches to hard and soft associations between digital objects
and their metadata. One common way of doing this is through defining both
metadata and digital objects as related "entities." Defining entities is a
useful way of modularizing object and metadata management. Unfortunately,
XML Schema do not support the definition of entities such as text files,
binary objects, etc. This is one main reason that the XML Schema has never
purported to replace DTDs, which do permit the definition of entities.

The University of Minnesota Libraries Digital Library Working Group
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed METS standard. It
demonstrates leadership by proposing a flexible and extensible means of
storing, referencing and interchanging metadata. We feel that stewardship
and maintenance of METS by the Library of Congress also is a very positive
sign. Our few concerns and suggestions deal mainly with accommodation of a
large body of existing institutions and practices, and the ability to
manage metadata and objects effectively. We support METS as a standardized
means of exchanging information, and hope that our suggestions will prove
useful.





*************************************************************************** Josephine Crawford Head of Information Systems Bio-Medical Library University of Minnesota Diehl Hall Room 350A EMAIL: [log in to unmask] 505 Essex Street S.E. PHONE: (612) 626-4185 Minneapolis, MN. 55455 FAX: (612) 626-5822 ***************************************************************************

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