I think the linkingIntellectualEntityIdentifier would usually point to a
descriptive metadata record either in the repository system or in an
external system e.g. a library catalogue. The Intellectual Entity could,
and probably will, have multiple representations. The identifier could
be an ISBN but in that case the repository would probably use the ISBN
to retrieve a descriptive metadata record from somewhere (for instance
to display with the digital object). I wouldn't use an ISBN actually -
I'd want to point to a specific metadata record. I can't comment on
It's true the metadata record can also be regarded as a digital object
but it is not a "content" object (its content is not the primary content
being archived) so I don't think describing it in a relationship would
Just my two cents worth, since no-one else has replied to your question.
As an aside, what a catalogue record represents is not absolutely clear,
which is why FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)
was developed. (FRBR defines Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item).
ISBN identifies a Manifestation (e.g. a book published in one country by
one publisher has a different ISBN from the same book published in
another country by another publisher. So would a digital surrogate of
the book be regarded as a new manifestation? I don't know but I don't
think it matters - I think you could still use the descriptive metadata
of the manifestation it was derived from.
Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories (APSR)
Preservation Metadata Project
National Library of Australia
[log in to unmask]
From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2006 6:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PIG] linkingIntellectualEntityIdentifier
A question on the use of the linkingIntellectualEntityIdentifier:
Does the Intellectual Entity an abstraction of the articles, books, etc,
that the same Intellectual Entity will have multiple representations
such as one digital object in my repository, another one in your repo,
and one hard copy in a journal residing on the basement of the science
library on campus?
If this is the case, the value of the
linkingIntellectualEntityIdentifierValue shall be something like a DOI
number, an ISBN number or alike, instead of an object identifier in some
repo since that's the ID of just a digital object but not the
abstraction of that digital object, am I right?
If this is the case, the usage notes on p.2-70 confuses me:
"... This may be a link to descriptive metadata that describes the
Intellectual Entity or some other surrogate for it that can be
I had thought the identifer is for the abstract intellectual entity but
not one of its representation, such as the descriptive metadata. Also:
"This link will likely be to an identifier of an object that is at a
higher conceptual level than the object for which the metadata is
provided, for example, to a collection or parent object."
Again here the identifier may be for a concrete digital object.
If this is to link two concrete object, isn't it better to just describe
it in the "relationship"?
Also, is there a way to describe the nature of the link, e.g., this link
is from a MODS metadata object to the intellectual entity, that link is
from a full-text pdf representation to the intellectual entity? Is there
a way to convey the descriptive metadata and/or the full-text nature of