 |
 |
Jerry, et al: I want to make the positive statement that I think it makes sense to add / return a processMD section to METS so that we could differentiate the kind of reformat/refresh/migration data associated with our digital objects separately from the MD about the source images. I don't know that very many institutions would use this section consistently, except perhaps for LC, but I do think it would be useful both for the short term and the long term. For instance, I can see that we may want to keep this kind of info for the important / unique digital collections that might inspire the kind of researcher who would want to know the refresh path, for instance, such as any digitization of our Archive of Recorded Sound. And, as time goes on and the digital collections age, so to speak, we're probably going to want to be able to separate this kind of MD purely for ease of administration. I haven't been able to look at the extensions yet that Morgan, Carl, et al are proposing, but plan to do so in the near future to see what their thoughts are to date. I'm not wild about calling the section "process" because I'm not sure that conveys what is being covered in the section any better than "preservation" did; perhaps a combined term would be more immediately intuitive such as "presrvprocess" or something like that, but I won't be bent (out of shape) if it doesn't change. Nancy Hoebelheinrich ******************************************************************* Metadata Coordinator, Stanford University Libraries Meyer Library 3rd Floor Stanford CA 94305-6004 voice 650-725-6843 fax 650-725-1120 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jerome McDonough Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:43 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [METS] Time Codes On another issue, I'm interested in hearing more from people on the processMD/sourceMD issue that Carl has raised. In MOA2, sourceMD was used for the metadata that Carl has suggested be included in a processMD section. I'm assuming that most of what LC has in mind for placing in the sourceMD section is descriptive metadata regarding the source document; in MOA2, we put this type of descriptive metadata in a descMD element up with all the other descriptive metadata sections. Would people prefer 1. adding a processMD section to record derivation/ migration information, and using the sourceMD element to record descriptive metadata regarding the source document, or 2. going with the MOA2 approach of having descriptive metadata regarding source put up in the first descriptive metadata section, with derivation/migration information recorded in sourceMD? Be aware that I will equate silence with indifference, and since Carl's pretty much the only one to voice a strong opinion so far, if no one else has a preference I will probably go ahead and add a processMD section. If you have an opinion one way or another, now would be the time to speak up. I would like to resolve this one final issue, and then put the finalized, revised schema up at LC's website. Thanks!