A fascinating question! Is archival package the same thing as
representation? In all cases?
I understand the value of original file name and even knowing
information about how the files were packaged together for the purposes
of transmission to the archive, but it is not obvious to me that that
has anything to do with representation...at least not in all cases. We
get large tar files with many articles each consisting of many files;
the name of the original tar file is interesting and worth preserving
somewhere, but it is not a property of a "representation" as the
transmission package in this case is of many works or intellectual
objects. I could imagine the opposite as well: receiving a large
complex intellectual work in installments consisting of several
We do get content packaged one tar or zip per article. In that case, it
would seem to appear as if there is an originalName for a given
representation. But I would argue that that is a coincidence and not a
There are even more complex examples that are worth considering: the
archival package may include multiple representations of the same
intellectual object where in the worst case some files belong to more
than one representation.
It seems to me that it is not safe to assume a simple one to one
mappings of how things are packaged for transmission and how they are
preserved. In practice this can easily become a complicated one to many
problem. That would suggest that it needs to be stored in it is own
data structure, one that can describe such relationships.
If it is really important to be able to reconstruct exactly how objects
were received it might be easiest just to preserve the exact
Evan Owens, Chief Technology Officer
[log in to unmask] (609) 258 8230
228 Alexander Street, Princeton NJ 08550
From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PIG] originalName in representation
I have to bother you again. I found another problematic Semantic unit:
It is not applicable to a representation. But if one comes to the use
case where you would like to exchange Information Packages in a file it
would be advatageous to have the original name of an archival package
which is exchanged between different systems over the network.
Definition The name of the object as submitted to or harvested by the
repository, before any renaming by the repository.
Rationale The name used within the preservation repository may not be
known outside of the repository. A depositor might need to request a
file by its original name. Also, the repository may need to reconstruct
internal links for dissemination.
Data constraint None
Object category Representation File Bitstream Applicability Not
applicable Applicable Not applicable
Do others also see this problem?