Jerry,
I had no intention to drive you to drink! [coffee]
Thanks for the explanation. I've been looking at roles in relation to
depositing resources in an archival repository. I've mainly been
concerned with roles relating to rights, but those seem to overlap with
roles relating to the archival/conservator function.
For rights, it seems that we have at least these roles:
- Rights holder (can be a copyright notice off of a published item, or
anyone who has obtained rights through a license or contract, or the
rights could be split between parties.)
- Rights "asserter" -- the person or institution that making a statement
about the rights (this assumes that somewhere in the METSRights record
there will be, as there is today, a statement that the item is
copyrighted, in the public domain, licensed, etc.) For example, if a
library has an archive of 19th manuscripts, whoever determined that the
items were indeed unpublished and in the public domain (either the
archive or the legal department or the digitizing department) would be
the one who asserts the rights. This is who you would go to to determine
if they had done the proper "due diligence" in relation to the rights
statement.
- Rights contact -- who you would contact for questions about rights and
possible uses. This probably is usually the archive or the institution's
licensing office.
Now the question in my mind is if there are roles relating to the
resources that aren't "rights" roles. For example, the agent role of
"ownership" of the material. In the analog world you can own the
material without owning the rights, as is the case for most books in the
library, and for works of art in a museum (where the artist retains some
IP rights). You can also be the creator of a resource and not be its
owner or IP holder (as in works for hire).
So you see how this can get very complicated, very quickly. However, to
get clarity for myself on what roles I'd like to see in the Rights
section, it would be ideal to have clarity on the roles that are
relevant for other sections. Right now the only roles I see are in the
METS Header section. It seems that some administrative roles that are
not specifically rights roles would be appropriate - yes?
kc
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 12:14, Jerome McDonough wrote:
> I should really not answer e-mail before I've had my fifth
> cup of coffee.
>
> So, I'll try to clarify my take on this, and if anyone else on the
> editorial
> board wants to jump in, they may feel free. The metsHdr really is
> intended to
> be about the METS document itself, and not the complete
> digital object. As noted in the original question, the METS schema
> provides slots for recording descriptive and administrative metadata for
> the digital files included in the digital object; the metsHdr should
> in theory be used only for CREATOR/EDITOR/IPOWNER etc. with regards
> to the METS document itself.
>
> That being said, it's fairly obvious that someone entrusted with
> preservation responsibilities for the METS document is probably
> also going to have preservation responsibilities for the rest of
> the files composing the complete digital object. If an organization
> wants to use such roles as PRESERVATIONIST, DISSEMINATOR,
> ARCHIVIST, etc. as a shorthand way of indicating that someone has
> responsibility
> for both the METS file and associated files in a digital object, I
> don't think
> anyone is going to morally censure them for it. Moreover, some folks
> may be using the <FContent> element to embed the content bitstreams
> inside of the METS document itself, in which case saying someone has
> preservation responsibility for the METS file would of necessity imply
> preservation responsibility for the embedded bitstreams. So, the
> metsHdr documentation stating that the <agent>s should be responsible
> for the "METS document" is actually more inclusive than it might sound
> on its face.
>
> But using the metsHdr to indicate someone has roles/responsibilities
> for digital content files in an object when they do *NOT* have
> responsibility for the METS
> file itself would be, to my mind, a mis-use of the specification. If
> someone
> has an agent role with respect to digital files that they do not also
> play
> with respect to the METS file, that should be recorded somewhere in a
> dmdSec or
> an amdSec with the <file> element(s) linked to the information using
> the DMDID
> and ADMID attributes. So, officially, <metsHdr> should be used to
> record
> metadata for the METS file itself, and if you want to use <metsHdr> to
> record
> information about agent roles for the METS file *and* associated data
> files,
> probably no one will give you grief, although it would be a *very* good
> idea
> to indicate that in the <note> element for that agent. But if someone
> has a role with respect to content files that they do not have with
> respect
> to the METS file itself, you should keep that out of the <metsHdr>.
>
> Does that help any, or do I need a sixth cup of coffee?
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> > OK, then I need a bit more of an explanation of the other agent roles
> > in
> > the metsHdr, in particular:
> >
> > ARCHIVIST
> > PRESERVATION
> > CUSTODIAN
> >
> > It seems to me that the inherent meaning of these implies not just the
> > METS document but also the digital resources. I can see where CREATOR
> > and EDITOR can refer to the METS document alone, but with the others
> > I'm
> > having a hard time giving them that semantic.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 08:15, Jerome McDonough wrote:
> >> On Aug 30, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Evan Owens wrote:
> >>
> >>> I read the documentation to say that the agent roles in the <metsHdr>
> >>> are roles in connection with the METS file, not the digital object
> >>> that
> >>> the METS file documents. Thus for example agent role "IPOWNER" means
> >>> IP
> >>> owner of the METS file, not the digital object described by METS
> >>> file.
> >>> Information about the IP owner for the digital object would go in the
> >>> rights MD section of the administrative MD.
> >>>
> >>> Is that a correct reading of the standard?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jerome McDonough
> >> Digital Library Development Team Leader
> >> Elmer Bobst Library, New York University
> >> 70 Washington Square South
> >> New York, NY 10012
> >> (212) 998-2425
> > [log in to unmask]
> > --
> > -------------------------------------
> > Karen Coyle
> > Digital Library Specialist
> > http://www.kcoyle.net
> > Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> Jerome McDonough
> Digital Library Development Team Leader
> Elmer Bobst Library, New York University
> 70 Washington Square South
> New York, NY 10012
> (212) 998-2425
[log in to unmask]
--
-------------------------------------
Karen Coyle
Digital Library Specialist
http://www.kcoyle.net
Ph: 510-540-7596 Fax: 510-848-3913
--------------------------------------
|
