LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


PIG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  July 2007

PIG July 2007

Subject:

Re: [METS] PREMIS and METS amdSec

From:

Clay Redding <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:18:43 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Hi all,

At this time, I can say that I might welcome this small change in METS amdSec, and maybe even some possible enhancements to PREMIS.  What we need are best practices that show several different technical ways of implementing PREMIS. 

Tobias rightfully brought up a good point about the modularization of PREMIS inside of METS, and that semantically it's a great fit to use the various sections like techMD, digiProv, etc.   That's certainly an extremely valid way to implement PREMIS.  However, if(!) anyone is implementing PREMIS outside of METS as a standalone format, it would seem to me that if they ever wanted to then reference that entire premis-as-root doc inside a METS or another wrapper, they might not have a clear construct to do so.  The implementer would have to choose either techMD, digiProv, etc. to point to their entire PREMIS.  Whereas if we had a mets:mdRef or mets:mdWrap as a first child of mets:amdSec we could include PREMIS data in without any potential tag abuse.  Perhaps we could even tack on a @ROLE eq "preservation" or something of that ilk.  That could serve a very useful role, and perhaps no less valid than the modularization/"semantically correct" approach.  

This construct might make things more generic or dumbed down.  I must admit however that from what I've seen of PREMIS, I think it stands on its own for a preservation metadata tool that semantically and functionally can stand independent of METS.   The only thing it really lacks when used independently is the ability to link to or include descriptive metadata for an object.  That's something I think PREMIS should support.  Given this perhaps odd notion, I'm curious about some existing practices from the rest of the community.  

1)  Is anyone actually (or potentially) using PREMIS independent of METS (or your wrapper of choice)?  If so, are you using the schema with the premis root element, or are you still using the modules-as-root outside of the premis root approach?  

2)  Is there any future desire to make format-specific extensibility in PREMIS, whether from the PREMIS board or from implementers?  e.g., for an object that is a still image, does it make sense to put MIX metadata inside my preservation metadata instead of inside METS proper, even though historically speaking MIX metadata might have lived inside our METS before we implemented PREMIS?  I (perhaps incorrectly) see a growth area in having PREMIS house format-specific technical metadata.   

I seem to remember from our birds of a feather meeting at DLF Boston that someone (Rob Wolfe? -- forgive me if I'm wrong) mentioned using premis-as-root.  How do you handle this in a METS (or other wrapper) environment, if so?

If we don't go with this addition, then we'd need a best practices suggestion on which amdSec child should serve as the container or pointer for premis-as-root data.  techMD might be the next most generic solution.

I hope these ideas aren't too far fetched, apologies if they are.

Best,
Clay

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clay Redding
Digital Project Coordinator
Network Development & MARC Standards Office
Library of Congress
LA308, Mail Stop 4402
101 Independence Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20540
[log in to unmask]
202-707-7196 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>> "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]> 7/18/2007 2:48 PM >>>
From the responses I've received so far on this issue, there seems to be
no groundswell of enthusiasm for the proposal to change METS. Consensus
seems to be what Tobias says below (object in techMD, event in digitProv,
etc.). So now I will proceed on trying to write up some best practices for
using PREMIS with METS (as it is now) to run by the community.

Rebecca

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Bronwyn Lee wrote:

> I also vote for option 1 and I agree with everything Tobias Steinke
> says.
> 
> Bronwyn Lee
> Newspaper Digitisation Project
> National Library of Australia
> [log in to unmask] 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> On Behalf Of Steinke, Tobias
> Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2007 4:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: [METS] PREMIS and METS amdSec
> 
> I would vote for alternative 1 (Use premis:object in techMD,
> premis:event in digiProv, premis:rights in rightsMD). We did this the
> same way with LMER (http://www.d-nb.de/standards/pdf/lmer12_e.pdf) in
> the METS-Profile "Universal Object Format"
> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/profiles/00000011.html). If you put
> PREMIS in one METS section only, the main advantage of using METS is
> lost: A clear semantically structure of metadata. The different sections
> of METS are meant to be independent of concrete schemas. A clear logical
> distinction of descriptive, administrative, technical and provenance
> metadata is what it's all about.
> 
> Your option 1 would change the proven structure in favor of one schema.
> Maybe there will be other reasons in the future to put descriptive and
> technical metadata in the same element because MODS or an other schema
> will be enhanced with technical information.
> 
> If you want to use PREMIS and METS together, PREMIS should be used in a
> way to fit in METS as it is. But I think it would be essential to give
> an "official" recommendation on how to do this, because this would be
> the first step to an universal exchange format for digital preservation.
> 
> Best regards,
> Tobias
> 
> --
> Tobias Steinke
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> Informationstechnik
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49-69-1525-1762
> Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
> mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> http://www.d-nb.de 
> 

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

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
April 2020
February 2020
December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 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
March 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager