LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


PIG@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

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  July 2005

PIG July 2005

Subject:

Re: Premis Issue: Inconsistent Mandatory Element Definitions

From:

"Robert R. Downs" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:30:38 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (160 lines)

The recently designed Data Model for Managing and Preserving Geospatial
Electronic Records (version 1.00), which is based on the PREMIS Data
Dictionary as well as on other schemas, employs the relational model to
identify elements for collections, objects, files, and fileparts etc.
The data model contains crosswalks to various schemas, including PREMIS,
and is available on the Geospatial Electronic Records website, at
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/ger

Thanks,

Bob Downs
CIESIN, Columbia University

Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:

>Yes, it is interesting. I don't think the approach Ryan suggested was
>considered. Based on experimentation we could end up with such an approach
>for version 2. So, yes, it would be quite informative to experiment with
>other ways of doing this.
>
>Rebecca
>
>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Priscilla Caplan wrote:
>
>
>
>>The idea of separate schema for the different types of objects is real
>>interesting.   We too are concerned with the (lack of) utility of very
>>loose schema validation.  I'm not sure what the best solution is.  I
>>think the Implementors should not feel bound to use the schema provided
>>but feel free to experiment with different ways of expressing the PREMIS
>>semantics.
>>
>>Priscilla Caplan
>>Florida Center for Library Automation
>>
>>Ryan Chute wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Rebecca,
>>>
>>>Thank you for your feedback.  I understand the necessary
>>>Representation/File/Bitstream mandatory element variances, but the use
>>>of a single schema for all object categories introduces significant
>>>complexities. Provided the Data Dictionary is the authoritative
>>>description, a processing application will have to perform additional
>>>validation to ensure Premis validity. Why was the decision made to use a
>>>single schema to handle varied mandatory elements for each
>>>objectCategory?  Although a bit more to manage, the creation of
>>>Object-Representation.xsd, Object-File.xsd, Object-Bitstream.xsd schemas
>>>would help ensure Premis standardization.  Alternatively, a slight
>>>loosening of the mandatory elements for the File objectCategory would
>>>allow File/Bitstream to share a single schema.  Any information you can
>>>provide regarding this topic is much appreciated.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>>Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Ryan Chute wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>Working with the PREMIS Data Dictionary and the Object Schema, we've
>>>>>noticed a number of discrepancies between the two; primarily pertaining
>>>>>to mandatory elements.  I was hoping the list could provide a bit of
>>>>>clarification as to what is the precise definition of a valid PREMIS
>>>>>object.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Why inconsistent mandatory element definitions (Object-v1-0.xsd vs.
>>>>>Data Dictionary)?
>>>>>
>>>>>There are a number of elements which are mandatory according to the data
>>>>>dictionary, but not by the object schema (e.g. preservationLevel,
>>>>>objectCharacteristics, compositionLevel, format, storage).  This
>>>>>introduces a second question:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>In the schema, the only things that are mandatory are those that are
>>>>mandatory at all levels in the data dictionary. In the case of
>>>>subelements
>>>>(that have a container element above them) they are only truly mandatory
>>>>if the container element exists.
>>>>
>>>>So in the case of preservationLevel, it is applicable for representation
>>>>and file but not for bitstream. objectCharacteristics is applicable for
>>>>file and bitstream but not for representation. Same for compositionLevel
>>>>(which is also a subelement of objectCharacteristics, so wouldn't apply
>>>>unless the latter exists) as well as format and storage.
>>>>
>>>>This is because we can expect to have PREMIS metadata at any of the 3
>>>>levels so we can't make it mandatory in the schema if it isn't applicable
>>>>at all levels, and we note that distinction in the data dictionary. So
>>>>the
>>>>2 have to work together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>2. What constitutes a valid Premis Object (Object-v1-0.xsd vs. Data
>>>>>Dictionary)?
>>>>>
>>>>>Issue 1 poses the question: "If an xml document validates against the
>>>>>object schema, is it truly a valid premis object?"  In other words, if a
>>>>>record validates against the object schema, but does not contain either
>>>>>preservationLevel or storage elements, is it a legitimate premis
>>>>>object?  What definition of a premis element should be observed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>So is this still a question? I would think that to validate an object
>>>>would require more than just validating against the schema if it were to
>>>>consider the levels. It would have to validate that the semantic unit
>>>>exists if it were at a given level (and we do have the semantic unit
>>>>"objectCategory" which designates the level).
>>>>
>>>>Rebecca
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
>>>>^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
>>>>^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
>>>>^^  1st and Independence Ave. SE                          ^^
>>>>^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
>>>>^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
>>>>^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
>>>>^^  [log in to unmask]                                          ^^
>>>>^^                                                        ^^
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We'd like to ensure we're implementing a standards compliant premis
>>>>>approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Ryan Chute
>>>>>Digital Library Research & Prototyping
>>>>>Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

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

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 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
March 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager