The University of Alabama Libraries is in the early stages of building a preservation repository.  We are planning to use the LC PREMIS in METS guidelines for structuring our SIP, but we're looking for some guidance in choosing the appropriate level—the intellectual entity or representation—at which to structure the METS record, particularly in the AIP.  Our identifier and file-naming scheme is built around the intellectual entity, so we're leaning towards an intellectual entity-level METS record for the SIP, but we can also see advantages of archiving METS records at the representation level.  Since we are planning to archive only master files, not delivery, we currently have only one representation per intellectual entity in most cases.  Looking forward, however, we need to allow room for file migrations and recaptures as additional representations.


If you have implemented or are planning to implement PREMIS in METS, I would love to hear your thoughts on the following:


1) At which level do you structure your METS record for the SIP (and AIP, if applicable)?

2) What considerations or constraints influenced your decision?

3) What issues have you encountered in your chosen method?

4) If modeling your SIP at the intellectual entity level, do you retain the same PREMIS in METS structure for your AIP or do you use other mechanisms for recording your PREMIS data?

5) If modeling your SIP and/or AIP at the intellectual entity level, how do you identify representations?

6) How do you handle supplementary material such as transcripts or OCR files? As separate representations or as part of the primary representation?


Any advice would be greatly appreciated.



Shawn Averkamp

Metadata Librarian

University of Alabama Libraries

Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0266

[log in to unmask]