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?
> 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?
>> Tim Au Yeung
>> Manager, Digital Object Repository Technology
>> Libraries and Cultural Resources
>> University of Calgary
>> (403) 220-8975
> 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]