LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


[email protected]


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  February 2005

METS February 2005

Subject:

Re: Categorizing metadata in METS

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:33:51 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (95 lines)

I agree with Ruth that the current split between administrative and
"other" metadata is problematic, although the problems I see are
different to the ones she noted. (Not that I disagree with hers, I just
have a different perspective.) If you embed MARC or MODS or DC records
in the dmdSec, you will often be embedding data elements that are
redundant with some elements in the amdSec, or, even worse, in conflict
with it. The problem is that the "descriptive" metadata record is often
created outside of the context of the METS record and may not complement
it well at all. I understand the reason for allowing the embedding of
descriptive metadata records from various sources, but I also feel that
any metadata record needs to have a coherent set of metadata elements,
which is not necessarily the case when using the embedding technique. I
understand the idea of wanting to use extension schemas, but I think
that in terms of the overall record those extensions need to be
coordinated somehow.

As for Jerry's comment about the installed base, that will always be
true, but if it becomes a reason not to change we're in big trouble. We
need to think about profiling and versioning to allow change to occur in
a controlled fashion.

kc

As for

Ruth Bogan wrote:

> Good morning everyone.
>
> I want to throw out for discussion something that I have been thinking
> over for quite some time. I am troubled by the inclusion in METS of
> the dmdSec and amdSec and am wondering what others think. I welcome
> any and all comments
>
> I believe it is unwise to segment metadata within a METS document into
> descriptive and administrative. Currently METS codifies these inexact
> concepts--descriptive metadata and administrative metadata--by hard
> coding them into the METS structure, and this is problematic. I
> believe that METS implementers would be better served by collapsing
> the dmdSec and amdSec segments of a METS into a generic metadata
> section, which can be repeated and categorized or labeled per the
> needs of the implementing institution.
>
> I think the segmentation of metadata in METS into dmdSec and amdSec is
> based on a misunderstanding of why the distinctions were originally
> made. The definitions of “descriptive” and “administrative” metadata
> are inexact and not mutually exclusive. They are, without question,
> useful terms and serve the purpose of educating practitioners about
> data that is or may be critical in managing digital objects over their
> lifetimes. This has been and continues to be unfamiliar territory, and
> there is need to try to extend our scope beyond the familiar
> boundaries of traditional library cataloging. However, as happily as
> these categorizations serve as informal guides, they are not
> defensible as separate entities.
>
> More importantly, the current METS model of separate descriptive and
> administrative metadata sections is an inherent counter to the
> flexibility that METS offers. There will be, as time goes on, an
> increasing need to segment, modularize, or otherwise section metadata
> into meaningful packets in order to deal with complex objects. For
> example, I can see wanting to have a single, unified metadata
> record--perhaps a MODS record extended with elements from other
> schemas--as my basic metadata. And I might want to incorporate
> multiple versions of that extended record for each manifestation of a
> digital object bundled into my METS object. That’s a more FRBR like
> model. Or perhaps I might want to follow a model more like VRA Core
> and have multiple unified metadata records for a digital image, the
> photograph of a painting used to create the image, and the original
> painting. I want to be able to modularize my metadata in way! s that
> make sense to me, and not be constrained by built in buckets for
> descriptive and administrative metadata.
>
> I think a more generic metadata structure would provide the
> flexibility to experiment with other models, one of which is certainly
> the descriptive vs administrative model. I simply believe it isn’t the
> only model, and that METS should support other possibilities.
>
> Ruth
> Ruth A. Bogan
> Head, Database and Catalog Portal Management
> Rutgers University Libraries
> 47 Davidson Rd., Busch Campus
> Piscataway NJ 08854



--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

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

May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
January 2023
November 2022
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