We had a quick discussion about this in the Editorial Committee meeting. We agree with your own view on this and think you would be better using a dctype:identifier and completely concur with your rationale for it.
A little background---my institution has implemented Archivematica, which as we all know has a firmly established PREMIS implementation. Each preservation package we create through Archivematica will also be assigned a unique ARK that will be referenced by the access objects associated with that preservation package. We are also currently in the early stages of developing a Fedora-based repository.
Our DAMS architects are trying to decide what field to place this ARK into within the access system record, and there has been discussion of using a predicate from the PREMIS schema to record this information; however, I’m a little hesitant to use a small piece of PREMIS within the access system since we are already dealing with one implementation of PREMIS in our preservation system, which is separate. My instinct is to put that information into a dctype:identifier field since the record is technically descriptive in the first place and because the access system itself will not actively run any formalized preservation functions that PREMIS would traditionally be associated with.
My question: should we attempt to use PREMIS to record this piece of information, or would using a more traditionally descriptive schema like DC be more appropriate?
All the best,
Drew Krewer, Digitization Services Coordinator
University of Houston
A Carnegie-designated Tier One public research university
M.D. Anderson Library
4333 University Drive
Houston, TX 77204-2000