Ray Denenberg wrote: > > Sorry, was away yesterday and am now catching up with yesterday's discussion... > MacKenzie wrote: > > > One of Ray's earlier comments was that an attribute (such as the OBJID on > > the root METS element) wouldn't do as the place to put the unique > > identifier for the METS object. Do you still thank so? Because I agree > > that it's the logical choice, and that a METS/OAI archive should be able > > to deal with attributes as easily as it does elements. > > 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? > Ray, if that is indeed the meaning of OBJID, I fully agree that it is not appropriate. What we are looking for is an identifier of the METS package itself. herbert