Print

Print


Forwarded for Jerome McDonough

Greetings,

The editorial board is considering several potential revisions to the
primary METS schema. However, some of these revisions would not be
backwards-compatible with existing METS documents, and we would like
some input from the community before we decide to implement
these. Roughly summarized, the areas where we are considering changes
to the schema include 1. Adding support for nested files; 2. Bringing
the <structLink> 'to' and 'from' attributes into conformance with the
Xlink standard; and 3. Loosening the processContents specification for
xsd:any elements within METS.

----------------

One issue that has come up repeatedly is a need to record within METS
information about files that may be embedded inside of other
files. Typical examples of this would be *.zip or *.tar.gz files. Some
archives are using these and other formats to package together sets of
files, and they would like a mechanism to indicate that a file contains
subsidiary files, and to allow the association of descriptive and
administrative metadata with those subsidiary files. This also implies
a need for recording some type of information regarding how to 'unpack'
a packaging file. An issue related to the embedded file problem has
arisen with respect to multimedia file formats that support the
multiplexing of audio and video streams together in a single file; some
libraries/archives would like the ability to record the existence of
separate streams within a file, as well as linking to separate
technical metadata records for different streams.

A relatively straightforward way to achieve these goals might be to do
the following:

1.      Make the <file> element recursive, so that a <file> element
could
contain other <file> elements;
2.      Add a subsidiary <stream> element beneath <file>, to record the
existence of separate data streams within a particular file;
3.      Add a new <transformFile> element beneath <file>, to provide an
indication of the 'unpacking' steps that need to be taken to gain
access to subsidiary <file> elements. This would need to be repeatable
to allow for specifying a series of steps to unpack a file, and might
provide a link to a <behavior> in the <behaviorSec> for performing the
transformation.

So, for example, if you had a *tar.gz file with two embedded files, one
of which had two embedded streams, you'd have a METS fileSec including
something like this:

<file>
    <Flocat />            <!-- location of *tar.gz file -->
    <transformFile /> <!-- Instructions on reversing gzip -->
    <transformFile /> <! Instructions on reversing tar -->
    <file />                 <!-- first embedded file -->
    <file >                  <!-- second embedded file -->
         <stream />      <!-- first embedded stream -->
         <stream />      <!-- second embedded stream -->
    </file>
 </file>

These changes could be made to the METS schema without breaking
backwards compatibility; METS documents created under the current
schema would also validate against this schema. However, if we allow a
<transformFile> element to link to a behavior in the <behaviorSec>, we
would be breaking with past practice, which specified that you should
be able to remove the <behaviorSec> of any METS document and still have
a valid METS document. This could be avoided by placing the
<transformFile> element in the behavioral metadata section and having
it link to the appropriate <file> element. While this would remove the
information regarding necessary transformations from proximity with the
<file> they are paired with, it might also have the advantage of
allowing a single description of a set of transformations (like the
ungzip/untar combo) above to point to a variety of files, eliminating
duplication of information in those cases where a METS document refers
to multiple *.tar.gz files.

Our questions for the METS community on these changes would be:

1.      Does making <file> recursive and adding a <stream> element
provide
the needed functionality for addressing compound/embedded files? Would
people prefer another approach?
2.      Would people rather have a <transformFile> element be located
within
the <file> element (which would be easier to read) or have it located
within the <behaviorSec> somewhere (which might eliminate duplication
of information regarding transformations)?

----------------------

In the current METS schema, the 'to' and 'from' attributes on the
smLink element in the structLink section are currently in the METS
namespace, and are defined as type IDREF. This makes it very easy for
the attributes to point to <div> elements in the structMap and to
validate that the attributes are linking to real elements. However,
this is somewhat problematic inasmuch as the 'to' and 'from' attributes
are really drawn from the XLink standard, and compatability with other
schema and tools which use XLink would be enhanced if these attributes
were placed within the XLink namespace. Additionally, having 'to' and
'from' defined as being of type IDREF limits them to serving as a link
between <div> elements in a single METS document. Users wishing to
decompose extremely complicated objects into a series of METS documents
cannot link between <div> elements in separate METS documents using the
current schema. To rectify these problems, it has been proposed that
'to' and 'from' be placed within the XLink namespace, and that they
draw their definitions from the current XLink schema available at the
METS website; this will have the practical upshot of renaming them
xlink:to and xlink:from and defining both of them as type
"string". Presumably most users would use either an Xpath or a URI to
specify links in these attributes, but this would not be enforced by
the schema.

This change would not be backwards compatible. Existing METS documents
which use the smlink 'to' and 'from' attributes would not validate
against an updated schema. It might be possible to avoid this, but only
by leaving in the existing 'to' and 'from' attributes and also adding
new xlink:to and xlink:from attributes. Having the two sets of
attributes seems guaranteed to cause confusion.

The question for the METS community at this point is: would you rather
1. Leave the 'to' and 'from' attributes as they are, even though this
means that METS uses a variant of xlink not conformant with the
standard; 2. Change the 'to' and 'from' attributes to xlink:to and
xlink:from and redefine them as strings, so that METS' use of Xlink
conforms to the standard (although this breaks backwards compatibility;
or 3. Keep the existing 'to' and 'from' attributes, add xlink:to and
xlink:from attributes to smLink, and indicate that the use of 'to' and
'from' is now deprecated and may eventually be discontinued?

----------------------

A final change to the METS schema that has been suggested seems
relatively unproblematic to the editorial board: changing the
definition of all METS elements which are of type xsd:any (mdWrap and
FContent) so that they have a processContents attribute value of
'lax'. This will allow METS documents that contain XML metadata records
in a format not defined by a schema placed within an mdWrap element to
validate; currently they produce an error. XML metadata that does
conform to a schema will still validate if a schema is available.

Any and all comments on these topics are welcomed, and should be
addressed to the METS mailing list. Thank you!

==============




Jerome McDonough