 |
 |
hi Jerome, all, I am afraid I do not agree. Making elements optional (or removing elements from the PREMIS XML Schema) because this would solve the redundancy between PREMIS and METS is a bad way forward. PREMIS will be used in conjunction with many technologies (including METS, MPEG-21 DIDL, CCSDS XFDU, etc.) and therefore should be defined independently of such technologies. For example, PREMIS - as it currently stands - can be easily integrated with MPEG-21 DIDL (see: a paper Herbert Van de Sompel and I recently submitted to the PV2005 archive: http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0509/0509084.pdf). I also doubt that the aforementioned redundancy problem is intrinsic to the combination of METS and PREMIS only. I notice a similar overlap between the METS CHECKSUM & CHECKSUMTYPES attributes and elements from the W3C XML Signature Standard; dito with regard to the METS BETYPE & EXTTYPE attributes and elements from the ISO MPEG-7 MDS Standard. Are there any plans to change those International Standards as well? Let me end with a constructive note. Instead of changing the PREMIS Schema based on practical issues resulting from its use with METS, one may consider defining the PREMIS elements and attributes in a global manner (instead of defining them locally as is the case in the current PREMIS XML Schema). This would allow for the re-use of inidividual PREMIS elements and attributes, including XML fragments, in other technological environments (including METS) when needed. best regards jeroen > 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] >