I just found this email from awhile back.
The first one had already been noticed and was added in this latest
The second one I just added (another case of it being the default, but now
we need to be consistent).
Let me know if anyone finds anything else.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Adam Rusbridge wrote:
> I've noticed a couple of very minor inconsistencies in the object schema:
> - inhibitorTarget does not have a type specified (whereas all other leaf
> elements have xs:string).
> - element storageMedium does not have a maxOccurs value specified.
> Best regards,
> Adam Rusbridge
> DCC Development
> HATII, University of Glasgow, Scotland
> Tel: +44 (0)141 330 8591
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: www.dcc.ac.uk
> On 02/08/05 22:45, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> > We plan to make the following PREMIS schema changes shortly:
> > 1. In the Object schema change relatedEventIdentification to
> > minOccurs="0". This was an error in the data dictionary and object schema;
> > it is not supposed to be mandatory.
> > 2. Add a version attribute to the root of each of the 5 schemas so that
> > instances may indicate what PREMIS version is applicable.
> > 3. Change the namespace for each schema to include the major version. In
> > this case the following will be used for each:
> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v1
> > 4. Change the schema location for each to reside in a directory that
> > indicates the version. In this case:
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/v1/PREMIS-v1-1.xsd
> > (this is the container)
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/v1/Object-v1-1.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/v1/Event-v1-1.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/v1/Agent-v1-1.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/v1/Rights-v1-1.xsd
> > 5. The current version will always be available using a generic name:
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/premis.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/Object.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/Event.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/Agent.xsd
> > http://www.loc.gov/premis/Rights.xsd
> > (Right now this would be version 1.1)
> > Please feel free to respond to this if this is not what you expected given
> > previous discussion on the list. Also if there are other obvious errors in
> > the schemas that you have detected, please let us know.
> > Rebecca