> > 1) Every single file being transported (even the ones though of as
> > descriptive or technical metadata) has an entry in the <fileSec>,
> > allowing us to indicate checksum, etc. These are grouped by type of
> > file.
> Nothing particularly wrong with this, although if you're
> doing it primarily because this allows you to record a
> checksum for the metadata record, I think it points to a
> problem in the greater metadata world.
Actually our primary goal was to list the files being transported and
their checksums. We hadn't yet considered a checksum for the metadata
record. It sounds like a good idea, but considering the issues you've
put forward here and the fact that we're looking for something
reasonably simple for this project, I'm thinking that's not something
we'd do for this particular case. The original model for transporting
these files was just to send a text file manifest listing the files and
a few key attributes, but we wanted to see what this sort of thing would
look like in METS and if we could gain a bit more semantics on the
relationships between the transported files, without a huge increase in
complexity. I suspect adding PREMIS to the equation would push the
project team back towards the text file approach.