I agree that the name suggests that @OBJID is intended to be the identifier for the object, but > "the primary record identifier is stored in the OBJID attribute in the > root <mets> element" really sounds like it should be for the METS record to me. It would be nice, or at least clearer, if mets/@ID could be used for the identifier for the METS record and mets/@OBJID for the identifier for the object, but @ID is (rightly, imo) restricted to NCNames, which means you're out of luck if you use, say, HTTP URIs for your record identifiers. If @OBJID is intended for the object, maybe we need a @METSID for clarity? -Jon Jon Stroop Metadata Analyst C-17-D2 Firestone Library Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544 Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: (609)258-0059 Fax: (609)258-0441 http://diglib.princeton.edu http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead Rick Beaubien wrote: > I would agree with Richard that the OBJID (as the attribute name > suggests) is the identifier for the digital object represented by the > METS document. > It appears that we need to clarify the documentation for this, both in > the schema and the Primer. > > Rick Beaubien > > Richard Gartner wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I read it as the latter - the object of the METS document. The >> annotation for OBJID itself isn't too clear in the METS schema, but >> the entry for altRecordID states: >> >> "the alternative record identifier element <altRecordID> allows >> one to use alternative record identifier values for the digital >> object represented by the METS document; the primary record >> identifier is stored in the OBJID attribute in the root <mets> >> element." >> >> which seems to imply that OBJID is also used for the digital object. >> >> >> Or so it seems to me! I may be wrong... >> >> Richard >> >> Riley, Jenn wrote: >>> Hello METS implementers, >>> >>> I'm interested in more information on the semantics of the OBJID >>> attribute >>> on the root <mets> element. Is the intention that the value of this >>> attribute be an identifer for the *METS document* or the *object* >>> represented by the METS document? In our environment, an PURL for >>> the object >>> resolves to a end-user view of an object and a different PURL >>> resolves to >>> the METS document. We're treating these PURLs as identifiers (yes, I >>> know >>> the debate from both sides on whether locators should do double-duty as >>> identifiers...) I'm trying to figure out which to use in OBJID and >>> which to >>> put elsewhere. >>> >>> The 1.8 Schema documentation >>> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/version18/mets.xsd> and the Primer >>> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/METS%20Documentation%20final%20070930%20m >>> >>> sw.pdf> seem to imply the METS document interpretation, but not >>> entirely >>> rule out the object interpretation. >>> >>> So what was the original intention for this attribute? And how are >>> folks >>> actually using it? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jenn >>> >>> ======================== >>> Jenn Riley >>> Metadata Librarian >>> Digital Library Program >>> Indiana University - Bloomington >>> Wells Library W501 >>> (812) 856-5759 >>> www.dlib.indiana.edu >>> >>> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com >> >