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

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

> 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