 |
 |
Robin's comments below are quite correct. The OBJID should not be interpreted so narrowly and should contain an identifier for the METS object, not a primary source document that a METS object represents. IDs for original sources should probably go in the administrative metadata sections relating to sources, not OBJID. I take the responsibility for the bad language in there. At 01:07 PM 8/1/2001 -0400, MacKenzie wrote: >First, a reaction from Robin Wendler (who's having problems posting to the >list right now) > >Ray Denenberg wrote: > > > OBJID is described as an identifier for the "original source document". > > Maybe I don't understand what METS means by "original source document". > > But if it means either (1) the object that the METS package pertains to, > > or (2) something analogous to DC "source", then clearly this is not > > appropriate as an identifier for the METS package. No? > >That is in fact the meaning of OBJID, but I'm not sure why. > >The old MOAII ArchObj OBJID had the usefully vague definition "A unique >identifying string (presumably a URN) assigned to this MOA2 object". > >I wonder if the definition of the METS OBJID, as we are interpreting it, >is too restrictive (or perhaps just wrong)? Shouldn't IDs for the >original source document to be in descriptive and/or administrative >metadata, rather than being an attribute of the METS element? If >people feel strongly that an identifier for the source should be an >attribute of METS, it should be a different attribute than the OBJID of >the METS object itself. Jerome McDonough [log in to unmask] Digital Library Development Team Leader Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, New York University 70 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012 (212) 998-2425