Print

Print


Yes, I see your point. It is redundant. I think the only person who can
answer this question is Jerry McDonough, who wrote the initial PREMIS
schemas, so I've sent him an email about it. I would agree that if we get
rid of one of them it should be the attribute.

Thanks for being so thorough! It is very helpful.

Rebecca

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Zhiwu Xie wrote:

> This is an implementation question.
> 
> In schema v1.1 there's an attribute "type" for the "object" element.
> Although optional, it's set to enumerate either "file",
> "representation", or "bitstream". I think this attribute is redundant
> because the objectCatgory contains the same information. 
> 
> Also it hinders further extension, because in case of more object
> categories are needed, this attribute needs to be modified each time an
> extension is proposed. 
> 
> Even no extension is expected, it still adds unwanted complexity to a
> hierarchical schema. I'm working on a schema that first defines an
> abstract objectType, then extend it to three or even more different
> types, e.g., fileObjectType, bitstreamObjectType,
> representationObjectType. If we must have this attribute, I'll have to
> further restrict the extended types to accommodate this redundant
> attribute.
> 
> Is there any special reason we need this attribute?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Zhiwu Xie
> 
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Research Library
> Los Alamos National Lab
>