Print

Print


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
>>
>