LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


[email protected]


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  August 2007

PIG August 2007

Subject:

Re: review of document for using PREMIS in METS

From:

Clay Redding <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:40:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)

Hi all,

This is somewhat related to the spirit of what Markus has stated with respect to metadata being independent of the container format.  A few weeks ago on this list, I requested [1] the addition of a mdRef or mdWrap child element that could appear directly under mets:amdSec, without having to use techMD, digiprovMD, sourceMD, or rightsMD.  The end goal of this was to make it easier to point to external premis-as-root instances since none of the four existing children of amdSec possessed the proper semantics to address what PREMIS expresses as a whole.   Understandably, as Jerry pointed out, this approach of adding elements could result in less interoperability.  (Although I rather liked the mention of concepts like RDFa to address future problems.)

At the time that Markus sent this mail, I was simultaneously working on an example instance [2] that both achieved what I was looking for, but also adhered to Rebecca's best practices document with respect to the separation of PREMIS concepts across techMD and digiprovMD.  Semantically it seems to me that they are the same document with respect to PREMIS.  The only difference between my instance and the one Rebecca provided in the best practices example [3] is that I'm making use of mdRef versus mdWrap.  I took Rebecca's MODS, MIX, and PREMIS content verbatim (except for adding namespace and schemaLocation info) and placed them into external files.  For the PREMIS content I combined everything into one premis-as-root instance, but one could opt to use the externally referenced content as object-as-root, etc., in numerous files. 

In my instance, mdRef with @xlink:href and @XPTR achieves pointing to the relevant nodes in the external documents.  My METS instance does not validate because of an error in the @DMDID value in structMap, where Rebecca's instance IDREFs an ID inside the MODS document.  Because I made my MODS external, I have no construct for getting at that ID as far as I know.  See my documentation inside my instance where I call for the addition of attributes such as @DMDXPTR and @AMDXPTR on any element that also allows @DMDID and @AMDID.  The mere addition of @xlink:href and @XPTR on these elements would work, too.

An added benefit to my experimentation of separating the metadata from the METS container was getting around the lax validation of mdWrap.  I found that the PREMIS content in the Louis examples that Rebecca and I provided doesn't validate when used in an external file with the premis-as-root construct because of the issue that Olaf Brandt pointed out a few days ago regarding premis:eventOutcomeDetail not allowing for text as a child (which I assume is a xs:any with lax validation problem).  In my instances I've always preferred strict validation, which is a reason that I've always tried to opt for referencing external files.

Admittedly, my motivation here has to do more with the current state of METS best practices than PREMIS best practices.  With the existence of tools like XQuery and the document() function in XSLT/XPath, I personally see no reason to make instances so verbose, but wouldn't wish to enforce this belief on anyone.  Of course the best practices document is in the right to show all content being placed in mdWrap since a good number (if not the majority) of METS implementers opt for mdWrap.  But it should also allow for mdRef.  A best practices document should remain somewhat neutral to the approach as long as they semantically and intellectually achieve the same goal.  In my opinion we should now begin to reflect how those who implement XQuery, native XML DBs, and the document() function might choose to approach PREMIS implementation with METS containers. 

[1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0707&L=pig&T=0&P=772
[2] http://lcweb2.loc.gov/natlib/cred/premis/louis.xml
[3] http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/louis.xml

Clay

>>> Markus Enders <[log in to unmask]> 08/17/07 11:28 AM >>>
Hi Rebecca,

thanks a lot for compiling the darft document. Just some comments from 
me - just before the weekend starts ;-)

- I would not assume that the <premis:object> section contains mostly 
technical data; therefore I would not vote for putting the 
<premis_object> under techMD. This might probably be the case  for files 
and bitstreams, but for "representations" the situtation is differently. 
Storing just relationship information between DocStructs (e.g 
MetadataUpdate event occured) doesn't really contain technical information.

Anyhow: it seems that the Object.xsd contains several different kind of 
information. Did you (the premis community) consider to extract the 
relationship section and create an xsd of its own for it?


- I just wonder, if we shouldn't really talk about, how we may avoid 
storing metadata redundantly. Especially in more dynamic scenarios where 
content gets updated by different tools, by different workflows, it 
might become unhandy to keep data consistent.
I'm not talking about changing the premis data model. One approach could 
e.g. be to allow Xpath expressions stored in a separate 
premis-attributes to point to different elements or attributes within 
the same xml-file.


- I doubt, we can describe best-practises in a general way without 
specifying the context. E.g. the idea of linking METS and premis using 
IDREF (somehow nothing else than a very special XPath) always leads to a 
mix of a container format (METS) and a metadata format (premis), which 
might not be appropriate. I think , in general the usage of a metadata 
format should be independent of a container format. I can imagine a lot 
of scenarios in which METS is used as an ingest format - but internally 
the data is split up: the metadata gets indexed, stored in different 
database fields, gets embedded into other container formats etc - in 
other words: gets separated from the container format. Mixing the 
container format and the metadata format makes it hard to pull data out.

For that reason, the decision, how strong the container format and a 
metadata format should be tied together is really specific to the usage 
scenario / application. In theory they shouldn't be tied together at all.

Ciao
Markus

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

February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
March 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
January 2022
December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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