Thanks everyone for your help with this. Looks like I'll need to change some of our plans to conform to the object interpretation that emerged here, and put in a change request for a place for the METS document identifier.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riley, Jenn
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:35 AM
> To: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard
> Subject: OBJID attribute
> Hello METS implementers,
> I'm interested in more information on the semantics of the OBJID
> 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
> resolves to a end-user view of an object and a different PURL resolves
> the METS document. We're treating these PURLs as identifiers (yes, I
> 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
> rule out the object interpretation.
> So what was the original intention for this attribute? And how are
> 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