Print

Print


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!