Print

Print


I think the list of agent roles could benefit both from elaboration
and addition, but it's relatively low on the list of things to
do at the moment.  And the METS editorial board chair currently
being under quarantine for chickenpox isn't speeding things
I'm afraid. :/

I'm afraid I have to disagree on the notion that extension
schema enhance interoperability.  Extension schema provide
for flexibility in local practice, while retaining compatibility
(read standardization) in the rest of the METS document format.
To the extent we all agree on using one extension schema for
a particular purpose, interoperability is enhanced, but frankly
if the agreement is universal it would probably be best to
make such an extension part of the primary schema.  Extension
schema were developed to handle those cases where the original
METS community couldn't come to immediate agreement on issues.

So, I'm somewhat reluctant to add new spots for extension schema,
particularly when we haven't had any discussion to determine
whether we need one (that is, whether there's widespread disagreement
on agent roles).  Clay, do have particular roles in mind
that you think are lacking and should be added?

> Might the enumeration of roles in the agent element of the METS header
> benefit from a little elaboration?  They are fairly intuitive, but
> is it
> useful to provide a list of options if they are not clearly
> defined?  Why
> not just allow institutions to develop their own lists?  This is
> currentlypossible through the use of the "OTHERROLE" attribute,
> but from the
> standpoint of interoperability might be more productively
> accomadated by
> allowing for an extension schema.
>
> Clay Templeton
> MLS Student
> College of Information Science
> University of Maryland
>