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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  February 2006

PIG February 2006

Subject:

Re: PREMIS data dictionary comments

From:

Zhiwu Xie <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:46:56 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (132 lines)

Hello,

I'm working on a more extensible PREMISE schema right now and just
discovered the same error (No. 1) in Bronwyn's comments. I have a few
more comments embeded below in the discussion and would appreciate very
much your feedbacks.

Thanks,

Zhiwu Xie

Graduate Research Assistant
Research Library
Los Alamos National Lab

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 14:32, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Priscilla Caplan wrote:
>
> > Here are my first thoughts, but I hope other PREMISers can chime in to help.
> >
> > Bronwyn Lee wrote:
> > > 1. For Representations objectCharacteristics is Not Applicable, but
> > > significantProperties, within the container ObjectCharacteristics, is
> > > Applicable. Shouldn't either objectCharacteristics be Applicable or
> > > significantProperties be Not Applicable?
> >
> > This looks like an error to me, but it seems like a rather large one so
> > I hope I'm wrong. significantProperties should be applicable to the
> > representation, so would have to be moved out from under
> > objectCharacteristics.
>
> Yes, I think indeed this is an error. I remember how difficult we found
> significant properties. We went back and forth on how much it relates to
> format information, which is probably why it ended up in
> objectCharacteristics. But we also decided that it has to be available for
> a representation (the example was an electronic encyclopedia which had
> many files comprising it and significant properties apply). Somehow we
> must have missed the fact that we can't have it under
> objectCharacteristics. That is surprising that we hadn't caught this, but
> I believe that it is an oversight. I suggest that we take it out of
> objectCharacteristics-- or we might want to allow it both under
> objectCharacteristics (if related to a particular format) and also for the
> representation as an element by itself.

In the current schema, allowing significantProperties to reside in both
places may introduce confusions. This would allow a file object having
two significantProperties elements, one directly contained in the object
element, another directly contained in the objectCharacteristics
element.

Is there any significant property a file object would need to express at
the object level on top of the one at the format level?

Actually I have one more comment on the object categories. The data
dictionary implies strongly an hierarchical schema implementation, such
as having an abstract object type then extend/restrict it to get three
or even more different concrete object types, such as FileObject,
BitstreamObject, and RepresentationObject type. But both the data
dictionary and the schema also show strong tendency to treat all
categories of objects uniformly, e.g., allowing the most relaxed
restricitons in order to accomodate all object categories (if not
mandatory in one category, then optional for all), and use
objectCharacteristics rather than formatCharacteristics even though it
does not apply to all objects. I am just wondering if there's a special
reason for this.

If we can adopt a hierachical schema, then the significantProperties can
be handled in the way that it appears at the object level for the
RepresentationObject, but at the format level for BitstreamObject and
FileObject.

>
> >
> > > 2. format is Mandatory while formatDesignation and formatRegistry are
> > > both Optional. Was formatDesignation (which is the container for
> > > formatName) meant to be Mandatory?
> >
> > This is intentional. formatDesignation and formatRegistry are
> > alternatives, so both are technically optional -- you could chose to
> > omit formatDesignation if you were using formatRegistry, and vice versa.
>
> Yes, you have to have one or the other. The usage note says:
> "Either formatDesignation or formatRegistry should be recorded. Both are
> optional, but since format (the container) is mandatory, one of these must
> be used."

Just to clarify, this is one or the other, not one and/or the other,
meaning I can't have both. Am I right?

>
> > > 3. swVersion is Not Repeatable for Representation and Bitstream but is
> > > Repeatable for File. Is this correct?
> >
> > Hm. I looked at earlier drafts of the data dictionary, and in both the
> > review version in February and the public version in March, swVersion is
> > applicable only to Representation and File, and NR for both. Although
> > the definition mentions "version or versions" which implies Repeatable,
> > an email message in my PREMIS archive explains the wording was intended
> > to accomodate the example ">=2.2.0" -- that is, that multiple versions
> > would be represented in a single occurence of the element. My guess is,
> > this ought to be Not Repeatable for File, which is easily corrected in
> > the errata.
>
> Since the container software is applicable for bitstreams and so are the
> other subelements, I imagine that it is also applicable for bitstream. I
> also have earlier versions with not repeatable, so I would stick to that.
> If you needed to repeat it you would use another software container.
>
> I'll add this to the errata on the PREMIS site-- and also that
> significantProperties should be outside the objectCharacteristics
> container. Whether it should be listed at both levels is something to be
> discussed. We haven't done that before, so the question is whether it
> needs to be tied to a particular format at the file level as well as
> separated at the representation level.
>
> Rebecca
>
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Bronwyn Lee
> > > Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories
> > > (http://www.apsr.edu.au)
> > > National Library of Australia
> > > Canberra ACT 2600 Australia
> > >
> > >
> >

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

November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
January 2022
December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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