 |
 |
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, jeroen bekaert wrote: > > The PREMIS Working Group spent a lot of time on digital signatures and > > brought in a few experts outside the group. We agreed that it needed to be > > compatible with XML signatures and many of the elements are the > > same. However, we did add a few elements that we felt were needed in the > > PREMIS context that weren't in XML signatures. I wouldn't think there > > would be a need to change XML signatures-- I can't speak to the others. > > > > I am very happy you acknowledge the importance of being compatible with > W3C XML Signature. That's why, I think, the PREMIS XML Schema should adopt > and import the W3C XML Signature Schema as the basis for expressing digest > and signature information. If desired, additional signature related > information - that cannot be expressed using the W3C XML Signature Schema > - can still be provided under the PREMIS Namespace. See also the PREMIS final report section under Special Topics concerning how digital signatures were handled in the data dictionary: section 4, p. 4-6 http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/premis-final.pdf Since the PREMIS data dictionary was meant to be independent of implementation, it did define elements for digital signatures and acknowledges that XML Signatures is a de-facto standard. Rather than repeat what's in the report I encourage you to read that portion of the PREMIS report, which explains where the PREMIS digital signature elements vary. Rebecca > The (re-)use of International (e.g. ISO, IEC, etc.) and Web (e.g. W3C, > IETF, etc.) Standards - imo - is of utmost importance in the context of > digital preservation. If only because of their wide adoption, possible > industry backing, stability (due to the standardization process), > availability of documentation, existence of reference software, guarantees > regarding future emergence of compliant migration tools, and so on. > > jeroen > > >