Are your effots related or aligned in any way to the DCMI collections
I think one of their deliverables is a schema for collection descriptions,
although I don't think they plan to involve METS directly in that.
So having a METS profile for collections seems interesting, but it would be
a good idea if the contents conformed to emerging
best practice as defined by this DCMI effort, no?
At 04:12 PM 2/28/2005 -0600, Thomas G. Habing wrote:
>Here at UIUC we have several ongoing projects where collection
>description plays a major role, and we are in the process of developing
>a number of closely related collection description metadata schemas for
>those projects. An example of one of those schema can be found at:
>You can see that the schema is composed of several related entities,
>such as collection, person, institution, project, and subcollections.
>The reason I am posting is because we have developed a METS profile for
>bundling the descriptions of these various entities and their
>relationships to each other into a single METS file. A brief
>description of the profile as well as links to the pertinent XML Schema
>and sample METS files can be found at:
>As far as we can tell there are no other similar METS profiles to what
>we are proposing, and we would be very interested in any ideas or
>opinions from the METS community based on what we have done.
>If there is enough interest, and what we have makes sense, we would be
>willing to develop and register a formal METS profile for collection
> Tom Habing
Associate Director for Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
[log in to unmask]