The change process was established for the PREMIS Data Dictionary and schema. We hadn't considered that it would apply to controlled vocabulary values, since we purposely only called them "suggested values" in the data dictionary. So I suppose we don't really have a formal review process for values. I wonder if institutions will need to implement different sets of values and that it may be hard for the community to agree on them. It would be good to collect them in one place so that they could be reused by institutions attempting to come up with controlled lists. In this case we could define the additional values in id.loc.gov, identifying them by their source. However, we may want to have a process to "anoint" certain terms that are generally useful to the PREMIS list. So this is something that the PREMIS editorial committee will want to discuss-- feedback from implementers would be welcome.
From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Van Garderen
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PIG] Newly nominated terms for Preservation Event (Event Type) controlled vocabulary
Using controlled vocabularies for certain PREMIS elements was one of the discussion topics during the PREMIS implementers workshop at iPres2010 in Vienna. While their use is not mandatory, most attendees agreed that encouraging tighter PREMIS usage profiles, including controlled vocabularies, had many benefits, not the least of which is cross-repository interoperability.
Rebecca Guenther noted that the ongoing maintenance of PREMIS controlled vocabularies can be managed using the LoC's Authorities and Vocabularies services, see http://id.loc.gov/
This work has already been started using the example values provided in the current version of PREMIS, see http://id.loc.gov/search/?q=*&cs=cs%3ApreservationEvents&Search_submit=Go
We discussed how to streamline the process of nominating new controlled vocabulary values and it was decided that the PIGpen wiki was an ideal platform for this. We have started the ball rolling by nominating some new Event Type (Preservation Event) values which we are using in the Archivematica project.
These are posted to this page (public wiki login: linus, password: lucy):
Maybe Rebecca or an Editorial Committee member can comment on what the next step in the process would be? I assume we'll need to find a way to move from the suggestions posted to the wiki to the formal revision process?
Maybe a period of time to allow for discussion of nominated terms on the wiki and/or the PIG list before the terms go into the change request process?
Peter Van Garderen
Project Manager, Archivematica. http://archivematica.org President, Artefactual Systems. http://artefactual.com