In the working group’s discussions, it was decided to limit the scope of our treatment of rights metadata to permissions directly related to the repository’s efforts to preserve an archived object. So we designed the Rights entity in a way that was oriented toward this purpose: specifically, the granting of a permission by a rights holder to the repository to take some action: e.g., migration, normalization, duplication, etc., documented according to the expression “Agent X grants Right Y to the repository in regard to Object Z”.


But this does not mean that you can’t use the Rights entity to document access rights. You could construct expressions like “Agent X grants to the repository the right to provide access to Object Z”. But it’s not clear that this is the optimal way to record rights metadata; other expressions might make more sense.




From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Generoux Sam
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 11:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PIG] PREMIS questions from LAC




Recently, Library and Archives Canada formed a working group to begin implementing PREMIS and METS around digital assets.  Quite a bit of time has been spent surveying our digital holdings and listing the metadata requirements for the material.  As we work through the PREMIS Data Dictionary, a number of implementation issues have come up.  I was hoping that the group could share some experiences on these issues.


1)       The rights entity in PREMIS seems to be designed to track curatorial rights: 1) granting permission to archive an object; 2) authorization to take preservation actions.  It organizes permission statements, agents associated with permissions, actions, etc, but can it be used to record and manage access rights?  What approaches have other institutions been taking when implementing PREMIS rights and recording access rights?  Has anyone implemented a rights registry?  

2)       Since we are looking to house our PREMIS metadata inside the METS structure, I was wondering, has anyone done any mapping of PREMIS data elements to the METS schema? 

3)       Finally, following the METS/PREMIS implementation thread, has anyone applied PREMIS and METS to complex, born-digital objects such as websites?  Are these schemas proving to be scalable to objects like websites, which consist of complex structures, thousands and thousands of files, and multiple formats?  Has this been applied to a domain web harvest?


I realize that all of these PREMIS questions are 'nested' inside of the larger METS implementation issues, but I was hoping to pick the groups collective brain on this.


Sam Generoux

Library and Archives Canada,

Research and Innovation