Print

Print


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
________________________________________________________________________