LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


METS@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

METS Home

METS Home

METS  May 2007

METS May 2007

Subject:

Re: General preference for digitized books

From:

"Yott, Patrick" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 May 2007 08:42:47 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (131 lines)

Tim,

We are working on this same issue at Brown as well. Our original model
is to create enormous METS records that package everything we know about
a digitized book. We are now moving to a more atomized model where we
will have a metadata records and object records (both recorded in METS).
In this model, a METS record will represent the work and point to pages
where each page exists as a media object on its own. In our case, this
decision was hastened by the need to treat prints within a book as works
onto themselves. We'll be putting some samples on our website soon.

patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Riley, Jenn
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [METS] General preference for digitized books


Hi Tim,

We're facing this issue as we're implementing a new Fedora-based
repository at IU. We need a "book-centric" representation (one METS with
a structMap and fptr for all pages, a dmdSec with a MARCXML record,
etc.) for our page-turner <http://metsnavigator.sourceforge.net/>, but
that's not necessarily what our repository needs. It needs things like
page-level technical metadata for page images, a place for a TEI
representation of the whole book, etc. I've very much come to the point
of view that there is no one right representation for all purposes, but
that there are many that each serve their own purpose. Our repository
has one METS syntax for ingesting the book, a set of different syntaxes
for storing the various parts internally, and (potentially, we haven't
actually done this yet!) a different one for sharing the "book" with
other repositories. I've been thinking all of these are separate from
the one we generate for the page-turner, but it may be one of the
existing representations will work for that too - we're still in the
process of making that decision.

Jenn

========================
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington
Wells Library E170
(812) 856-5759
www.dlib.indiana.edu

Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Au Yeung
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [METS] General preference for digitized books
>
> I think it was a comment at a conference that implied that
> the "community"
> was moving away from the large master document approach to
> the object for each digital file that struck me. Since we're
> reviewing our approach anyways I thought I'd fire it out to
> the community that's closest to these kinds of things that
> I'm familiar with.
>
> I suppose the question might be better phrased that if an
> ideal system could be developed that was broadly accepted,
> what shape might those digitized books take within that kind
> of system and possibly why?
>
> Tim
>
>
> > Preferred by who? :)
> >
> > Preference in these cases will depend on local technology
> environments
> > for processing XML, anticipated use/reuse of the material,
> and a host
> > of other local, contextualizing factors. One size doesn't fit all.
> >
> >
> > On May 9, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Tim Au Yeung wrote:
> >
> >> We're reviewing our implementation of our digitized books
> store and I
> >> just wanted to poll to the community:
> >>
> >> What do you think is the preferred representation of a
> digitized book
> >> where the composition is primarily of image-based pages --
> a single
> >> large METS document covering all of the file pointers to
> the various
> >> images and a series of dmdSecs for descriptive information on the
> >> book, the chapters and the pages or a series of METS
> documents with
> >> the top-level book METS document containing the primary
> metadata and
> >> structMap but no file pointers and individual chapter and
> page METS
> >> documents containing corresponding file pointers and descriptive
> >> metadata related to that page or chapter?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> --
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> Tim Au Yeung
> >> Manager, Digital Object Repository Technology Libraries
> and Cultural
> >> Resources University of Calgary
> >> (403) 220-8975
> >> ytau(at)ucalgary(dot)ca
> >
> > Jerome McDonough, Asst. Professor
> > Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of
> > Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
> > 501 E. Daniel Street, Room 202
> > Champaign, IL 61820
> > (217) 244-5916
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
>

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
December 2021
November 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 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
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
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager