Print

Print


I wouldn't advocate removing PREMIS elements.  But making some elements
optional in PREMIS so that people working within a METS context can  
decide
whether they want to record information within METS or within PREMIS on
their own is certainly an option.

On Oct 18, 2005, at 8:35 AM, Steve Bordwell wrote:

> Olaf,
>
> I would agree that it is essential that there is only one PREMIS
> metadata schema, and that multiple flavours to meet the needs of a
> specific application or implementation defeats its purpose as a
> standard.
>
> It should not be assumed that all those who use PREMIS will do so in
> conjunction with METS. For a number of reasons we will not  
> initially be
> implementing METS. We still want to use PREMIS and are designing a
> database using PREMIS. From the viewpoint of a non-METS user, PREMIS
> therefore needs to remain a complete and coherent schema in itself.
>
> Perhaps I have missed the point, but I am concerned that if there is
> redundancy between PREMIS and METS, that PREMIS semantic elements will
> be removed in favour of elements of METS.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On  
> Behalf Of
> Olaf Brandt
> Sent: 13 October 2005 17:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PIG] mandatory elements
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to argue, that we should provide a standard, which is  
> clear
> on the one hand but which is also easily usable. Usability in the
> context of the real world means, that we consider that many  
> institutions
> might use METS.
>
> One main result of point 5.2., metadata usage, in the PREMIS
> surveyreport (page 45,
> http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/surveyreport.pdf )
> is that
> "METS was by far the most commonly used scheme. Survey results  
> indicate
> adoption in all three types of institution, although to varying  
> degrees:
> 64% of libraries, 42% of archives, and 35% of other institutions  
> used or
> planned to use METS."
>
> The PREMIS group recommended the usage of METS:
> The following appear to be trends in practice that may ultimately  
> emerge
> as best practices:
>
> ...Use the METS format for structural metadata and as a container for
> descriptive and administrative metadata; use Z39.87/MIX for technical
> metadata for still images. (Trends and conclusions, page 7)
>
> I my opinion, we should at least have a closer look, how the PREMIS
> Metadata schemas could be integrated in METS without too many
> redundancies.
>
> One of my main concerns is the split up of the PREMIS schemas in too
> many different flavours. That could mean a lack of common tools. If
> there is a way to integrate the PRMEMIS schmeas easily in METS (but
> being explicit enough!), I would be glad.
>
> Cheers
>
> Olaf
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> __
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> __
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> __
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> __
>

Jerome McDonough, Asst. Professor
Graduate School of Library & Information Science
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, Room 202
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 244-5916
[log in to unmask]