I read it as the latter - the object of the METS document. The
annotation for OBJID itself isn't too clear in the METS schema, but the
entry for altRecordID states:
"the alternative record identifier element <altRecordID> allows
one to use alternative record identifier values for the digital object
represented by the METS document; the primary record identifier is
stored in the OBJID attribute in the root <mets> element."
which seems to imply that OBJID is also used for the digital object.
Or so it seems to me! I may be wrong...
Riley, Jenn wrote:
> Hello METS implementers,
> I'm interested in more information on the semantics of the OBJID attribute
> on the root <mets> element. Is the intention that the value of this
> attribute be an identifer for the *METS document* or the *object*
> represented by the METS document? In our environment, an PURL for the object
> resolves to a end-user view of an object and a different PURL resolves to
> the METS document. We're treating these PURLs as identifiers (yes, I know
> the debate from both sides on whether locators should do double-duty as
> identifiers...) I'm trying to figure out which to use in OBJID and which to
> put elsewhere.
> The 1.8 Schema documentation
> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/version18/mets.xsd> and the Primer
> sw.pdf> seem to imply the METS document interpretation, but not entirely
> rule out the object interpretation.
> So what was the original intention for this attribute? And how are folks
> actually using it?
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Information and Knowledge Specialist
Centre for e-Research
King's College, London
Tel: (020) 7848 1923