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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  September 2007

METS September 2007

Subject:

Re: [PIG] review of document for using PREMIS in METS

From:

Olaf <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:39:51 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (134 lines)

Hi

this is a mail from last week which went to the wrong list last week :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to respond to two things: first the versioning and,
connected to it, the Container usage.

I would like to argue for a versioning for every Schema. If you want to
solve this by just putting it into a PREMIS Container it might not be
enough. If you process parts of the data and proccess them on their own
(like Markus mentioned in his post), the same problem occurs.

One might face the same problem, if in ten years time one wants to
transport old Metadata into the future and (keep the original! :-) and
has to mix them with newer versions of PREMIS.

Besides you are *loosing flexibility* and not getting a real solution
for the versioning problem with the usage of the Container, there is an
advantage. The advantage of container usage I see is, that if you do not
want to change METS (which I am very much in favour of!), that software
might better know what to expect in a Section.

If you do not know the structure of a METS document in advance, it is
alsmost unpossible to process it automatically. That is, because many
things might be embedded. If one uses the PREMIS Container a written
Parser (e.g. with generated Java Bean Classes) could check step by step
what to process.

On the other hand it might be an idea, to change METS in a way, that one
can specify which Entity to expect in a section. There are different
options to do so.

First, create an own PREMIS section (in AMD section) with a specified
attribute (like ="Object").

Or: extend the other sections (techMD, digiprov...) with a specifying
type attribute. Maybe there are ohter solutions, too.

I like the idea having a separate PREMIS section, but I am not sure if
that is a viable way for he METS community?



Olaf






________________________________

Van: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum namens Rebecca S. Guenther
Verzonden: ma 27.08.2007 23:04
Aan: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: Re: [PIG] review of document for using PREMIS in METS



On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Priscilla Caplan wrote:

> The DAITSS programming group (Randy Fischer, Franco Lazzarino, Carol
> Chou, and Manny Rodriguez) met on this late last week and these are
> their comments:
>
> 3.  Use of PREMIS container.
>
> Overall, we preferred to say that if you want to keep all PREMIS
> metadata together you MUST use the container, and if you want to
> distribute it to multiple METS sections then you MUST NOT use the
> container.  Then the simple presence of the container would tell you
> that you need not look anywhere else for PREMIS metadata.
>
> However, Franco pointed out that if you do not use the container, you
> don't get the version (i.e. v1-1 as opposed to v1). So that would argue
> to always use the container.  Or change the schema.

To me, it makes a lot of sense to add the version attribute to each
separate schema. It is possible that someone may mix versions-- or that
one schema may not be updated when another one is. What do others think?

I would agree, it is better to specify that if you put all metadata in one
place that you use the container.

> 4. Use with format specific technical metadata
>
> The proposed rule is, when the same element is defined in both PREMIS
> and a format-specific scheme, always put a value in PREMIS and
> optionally repeat it in the format-specific scheme.  The problem with
> redundant metadata is that it introduces the possibility of conflict --
> what if the two values don't agree?  So if you allow redundancy, one
> place always has to be declared as authoritative, in this case
> presumably PREMIS.  So if only PREMIS is authoritative, that implies you
> can't trust the non-authoritative metadata in the format-specific
> scheme, and the question becomes, are there circumstances it may be
> useful to record non-authoritative metadata?
>
> Ideally values should be in one place only.  We like Marcus Enders'
> suggestion of using XPath expressions.

The reason we proposed keeping it in both places as an option is that
there are programs that stick Jhove output (like in MIX) in a METS techMD
section. It would be easier to keep it than remove it. But we do need to
experiment with using XPath expressions.

> 5. METS structMap v. PREMIS structural relationships
>
> Agree METS structMap is preferred, but we recommend no redundant PREMIS
> elements for the reasons stated above.

It might be good to experiment with transforming a METS structMap to
PREMIS relationships for the scenario where METS is used as a transfer
format and the repository takes it apart and stores the metadata in a
database as something like PREMIS semantic units-- or like Fedora, where
I'm told that relationships are treated separately.

> 6.  Other METS redundancies
>
> Agree PREMIS is preferred, but we recommend no redundant METS elements
> for the reasons stated above.
>
> 7. ID/IDREF and PREMIS identifiers
>
> Franco's comment is that IDREF is global and it might be preferable to
> use KEY and KEYREF. (I'm not sure I understand this so I'll just turn it
> over to you XML experts out there.)

One of our XML experts didn't understand this either, so please explain.

Rebecca

> p

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

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