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,
"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.