I agree with the inclination to relocate significantProperties from
within objectCharacteristics to the same level as preservationLevel.
I think that preservationLevel should not be mandatory, I can imagine a
repository that desires to use PREMIS without recording a preservation
level. The usage note even reads: "If the repository offers only a
single preservation level, this value does not need to be explicitly
recorded within the repository."
I like the subelements proposed for preservationLevel, but would like to
propose one further adjustment. Rather than define a vocabulary for the
preservationLevelType element, why not just allow users to declare their
own preservation level vocabularies?
preservationLevel O R
preservationLevelSource M NR
preservationLevelValue M NR
This would let users define their own lists of preservation values.
I think that significantProperties should also be structured via
significantProperties O R
significantPropertiesSource M NR
significantPropertiesValue M NR
As it is not clear if these two semantic units are related they should
not be grouped together.
I also support the inclusion of a Policy element that allows one to
point to a set of encoded policies to be enforced upon the object. I
don't think a separate entity is called for, but a point from which
policy metadata can be referenced would be nice.