re: without too many redundancies
What about some sort of XPATH / XPOINTER based inclusion mechanism?  If
you didn't have the PREMIS element encoded somewhere, you would fill it
in, but if you already had the info stored in some other namespace and
you wanted to avoid repeating it, you would use the inclusion element to
point to where the value could be copied from.  It would be required to
have either a value or the reference to the value.  

-- Brian

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 09:52, Olaf Brandt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to argue, that we should provide a standard, which is clear
> on the one hand but which is also easily usable. Usability in the
> context of the real world means, that we consider that many institutions
> might use METS.
> 
> One main result of point 5.2., metadata usage, in the PREMIS
> surveyreport (page 45,
> http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/surveyreport.pdf )
> is that
> "METS was by far the most commonly used scheme. Survey results indicate
> adoption in all three types of institution, although to varying degrees:
> 64% of libraries, 42% of archives, and 35% of other institutions used or
> planned to use METS."
> 
> The PREMIS group recommended the usage of METS:
> The following appear to be trends in practice that may ultimately emerge
> as best practices:
> 
> ...Use the METS format for structural metadata and as a container for
> descriptive and administrative metadata; use Z39.87/MIX for technical
> metadata for still images. (Trends and conclusions, page 7)
> 
> I my opinion, we should at least have a closer look, how the PREMIS
> Metadata schemas could be integrated in METS without too many redundancies.
> 
> One of my main concerns is the split up of the PREMIS schemas in too
> many different flavours. That could mean a lack of common tools. If
> there is a way to integrate the PRMEMIS schmeas easily in METS (but
> being explicit enough!), I would be glad.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Olaf