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  May 2009

METS May 2009

Subject:

Re: ADMID on mdRef

From:

Rick Beaubien <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 18 May 2009 09:28:44 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (230 lines)

I *think* I would tend to disagree with Markus' basic contention that 
the mdRef element should only contain metadata about the reference 
itself, and not the target of the reference.  But then--there you have 
it--I am much more pragmatist than purist.  However, I think I would 
agree that the way METS references metadata records is not very well 
modeled.  The mdRef is pretty much analogous to FLocat--both implement 
xlink:simpleLink after all--but I would agree that it's not completely 
analogous.

I have to say that I was a little surprised to discover, as I thought 
about some of the concerns that Markus expressed, that we do not support 
an ADMID attribute at both the FLocat and FContent levels under <file>, 
but rather just at the parent <file> and <fileGrp> levels.  Just like 
elements of mdSecType, a <file> element could both contain a reference 
to external content (FLocat)  and wrapped content (FContent)--and it 
seems like different administrative metadata could pertain to each.

Rick

Robin Wendler wrote:
> I agree that the concerns expressed by Evan and Markus are important, 
> and I
> hope we can address those. Doing this in a rigorous way, however, 
> feels like
> a major, non-backwards-compatible release, i.e. METS 2.0.
>
> That makes it sound like for our work now, we will need to take an 
> interim
> approach of using the ADMID on the encapsulating element (e.g. techMD),
> using only a single mdRef or mdWrap per encapsulating element, and using
> GROUPID to associate different expressions of the same metadata.
>
> That will work, but I am glad we've got the larger question on the 
> table for
> future METS development.
>
> --Robin
>
>
>
> At 12:47 PM 5/15/2009 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>> This is an interesting topic.  We struggled with this as well.
>>
>> We liked the DIDL concept of metadata being an asset like any other
>> asset and we tried to carry that over into our hybrid METS-like metadata
>> implementation.  We have an additional structMap for the metadata
>> records along side the structMap for the content assets.
>>
>> The fundamental problem is of course that it is hard to document
>> something inside itself; checksum, for example.  In our METS-like
>> metadata records, content assets have a full set of technical metadata,
>> but metadata assets do not, at least not the latest metadata asset.
>>
>> Another key question is do you retain all versions of the metadata
>> record or do you keep only a current, cumulative metadata record.  That
>> affects how you think about the treatment of events, for example.  We
>> decided that, rather than updating the items metadata every time fixity
>> check was done, we would treat fixity check as a collection level event
>> and write collection level fixity reports.  If a fixity check error was
>> discovered, we would write that into the item metadata record, but not a
>> fixity check verificaction.  Too much churning of the metadata.
>>
>> These two questions---the treatment of metadata as assets and versioning
>> of metadata within and between metadata records---are what has led us to
>> move completely away from METS for our next generation of preservation
>> metadata for Portico.  We will export as PREMIS/METS, but we are not
>> using it ourselves internally. It would be a great service to the
>> community for METS to address these issues.
>>
>> I suggest that to address these problems it will be necessary to gather
>> use cases and especially to document processing models (metadata and
>> content lifecycles).  As an outside observer, it has seemed to me that
>> the METS world view was digitize once and describe statically; an
>> over-simplification, I know but at least partly true.  A METS framework
>> that takes a full lifecycle view for content and metadata would be
>> tremendously beneficial to everyone.
>>
>> Evan Owens
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Enders, Markus
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:20 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [METS] ADMID on mdRef
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> For the purity of the data model the mdRef element should only contain
>> information about the reference itself and not about the target of the
>> reference (the file). An ADMID would contain administrative metadata for
>> the reference as e.g. lifetime of a reference etc... I am not sure we
>> need ADMID for mdWrap.
>> If we would like to store administrative for the referenced file, we
>> need to define this file first. Currently there isn't any element which
>> defines metadata files.
>>
>> I am not sure where we could define such a file. In theory the file
>> section seems to be a good place, though my understanding always was
>> that files in the file section are just representing the content. The
>> mdRef would link to a <file> element in the fileSec, which then points
>> out to the actual file. However, we might even want to think about an
>> additional section for this.
>>
>> Unfortunately the way METS references metadata records is not very well
>> modelled. METS uses a single element mdRef for two purposes:
>> 1) it defines a metadata record (as the mdWrap element does)
>> 2) and provides a link to the record using xlink attributes.
>>
>> I believe METS should define metadata records very similar to files and
>> provide two different elements for the definition and the link. But this
>> might require a much more strict definition what a metadata record and a
>> manifestation of a metadata record is. Just to clarify what I mean with
>> manifestation of a metadata record:
>> A metadata record as an abstract object containing the semantical
>> information to describe another object. It's manifestation uses a
>> certain format to serialize this information. A metadata record may have
>> a DC manifestation a MODS manifestation, a MARC21 manifestation.....
>> Each manifestation can be stored in one or more locations.
>>
>> The METS model does not differentiate between the metadata record
>> manifestation and its location. I am also not sure if METS defines a
>> metadata record. In theory a dmdSec might contain more than one metadata
>> record as its mdWrap and mdRef elements may contain metadata records
>> with very different semantical information (and not just in different
>> formats).
>>
>> The question how METS handles metadata records becomes important if METS
>> is used in a preservation environment. A preservation system should
>> (well, probably must) regard each metadata record as an object in its
>> own right. A metadata record is usually managed independently from the
>> content. It may be refined (add new fields) or migrated.
>>
>> In this case additional (preservation) metadata need to be stored for a
>> metadata record. METS is currently not able to store metadata records
>> for metadata records. I am also not sure to which METS element an
>> appropriate preservation metadata record should be attached. The dmdSec?
>> The mdWrap/mdRef?
>> I am also not sure what kind of metadata Robin wants to store - seems it
>> is neither on metadata record nor on metadata record manifestation level
>> but on the actual storage level.
>>
>> I think this issue is slightly broader than just adding an ADMID
>> attribute. Might even be that we should get rid of the FILECORE
>> attribute as well ;-)
>>
>>
>> Ciao
>> Markus
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Robin Wendler
>> Sent: 14 May 2009 15:45
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [METS] ADMID on mdRef
>>
>> Hi, all --
>>        We'd like to include in METS documents the administrative and
>> technical metadata associated with an mdRef'd metadata file. Right now,
>> it looks like there is no ADMID attribute on mdRef. One would have to
>> use the ADMID on the encapsulating element (e.g. techMD, digiprovMD),
>> which may not be appropriate, since the linked ADMID would refer not to
>> the encapsulating element as a whole, but rather to the specific file
>> within the mdRef.
>>
>> The METS Board did add the FILECORE attribute group to mdRef, which was
>> a recognition that one might need to record more information about the
>> ref'd file.
>> Adding ADMID would be a logical next step to enable folks to manage
>> metadata files similarly to the way they manage content files.
>>
>> Any thoughts? Thanks,
>>
>> --Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> Robin Wendler
>> Harvard University Library
>> Office for Information Systems
>> 90 Mt. Auburn St.
>> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
>> 617-495-3724 (W)
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> **
>>
>> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
>>
>> The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts 2007/08
>> : www.bl.uk/knowledge
>>
>> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
>> www.bl.uk/adoptabook
>>
>> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> *
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
>> legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are
>> not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
>> [log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or
>> copied without the sender's consent.
>>
>> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
>> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The
>> British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the
>> author.
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> *

-- 
Rick Beaubien
Software Engineer, Research and Development
U.C. Berkeley Library

Contact information:
505-466-6630

88 Herrada Rd
Santa Fe, NM 87508

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

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