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  July 2002

METS July 2002

Subject:

Re: METS Header

From:

Jerome McDonough <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:03:07 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (41 lines)

I think the list of agent roles could benefit both from elaboration
and addition, but it's relatively low on the list of things to
do at the moment.  And the METS editorial board chair currently
being under quarantine for chickenpox isn't speeding things
I'm afraid. :/

I'm afraid I have to disagree on the notion that extension
schema enhance interoperability.  Extension schema provide
for flexibility in local practice, while retaining compatibility
(read standardization) in the rest of the METS document format.
To the extent we all agree on using one extension schema for
a particular purpose, interoperability is enhanced, but frankly
if the agreement is universal it would probably be best to
make such an extension part of the primary schema.  Extension
schema were developed to handle those cases where the original
METS community couldn't come to immediate agreement on issues.

So, I'm somewhat reluctant to add new spots for extension schema,
particularly when we haven't had any discussion to determine
whether we need one (that is, whether there's widespread disagreement
on agent roles).  Clay, do have particular roles in mind
that you think are lacking and should be added?

> Might the enumeration of roles in the agent element of the METS header
> benefit from a little elaboration?  They are fairly intuitive, but
> is it
> useful to provide a list of options if they are not clearly
> defined?  Why
> not just allow institutions to develop their own lists?  This is
> currentlypossible through the use of the "OTHERROLE" attribute,
> but from the
> standpoint of interoperability might be more productively
> accomadated by
> allowing for an extension schema.
>
> Clay Templeton
> MLS Student
> College of Information Science
> University of Maryland
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager