Difference between revisions of "Talk:ViRR and METS"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(question removed) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Metadata Formats = | |||
== Format for Structural Metadata == | |||
=== [[Metadata_Encoding_and_Transmission_Standard|METS]] === | |||
* METS enables the mark up of front, cover, etc. | |||
* METS is an international standard. It displays the hierarchical structure, the name and the location of the data storage and the metadata of objects. --> METS can be used for descriptive metadata as well as container format. | |||
* Im Interesse weiterer Projekte (fuer die ggf. eine Foerderung der DFG beantragt werden koennte) ist METS nahezu zwingend. Alternativ zu diesem seitenorientierten Format kaeme TEI als dokumentorientiertes Format in Frage. Das MPI praeferiert eindeutig METS, da es den gegenwaertigen Anforderungen genuegt und einen geringeren Aufwand nach sich zieht. s. auch DFG-Praxisregeln, S. 17. 18.10.2007, S. Amedick | |||
'''--> A METS import and export is needed.''' Therefore, an Mapping from the eSciDoc Container Format to METS is needed. This has to be written in XSLT (for exemple see the Mapping [https://zim01.gwdg.de/trac/wiki/eSciDoc_to_DCXSLT eSciDoc to DC]. | |||
=== Discussion === | |||
In general, an external format (like METS/eSciDoc) can be used in three different ways: | |||
# importing digital objects in eSciDoc's native format | |||
# importing from METS format - might be very problematic from Natasa's point of view, e.g. because METS is very broad and only a specific import for ViRR METS can be done | |||
# supporting METS as native format in eSciDoc -> this would require a lot of redesign in the basic services. According to Malte there are related requirements coming from the GBV | |||
# exporting to METS -> export is probably not very problematic | |||
'''Questions:''' | |||
# is the eSciDoc native format rich/flexible enough to represent the [structure of the] digital objects as required by MPIeR? | |||
# If yes, does this mean we need to provide an offline editor for the eSciDoc native format ourselves? | |||
'''Result:''' <br/> | |||
This question is the mayor decision in the project and will influence the required/chosen implementation essentially. The decision needs to be taken until January 2008! We decided to prepare an detailed evaluation together with FIZ. | |||
Revision as of 15:20, 10 February 2009
Metadata Formats[edit]
Format for Structural Metadata[edit]
METS[edit]
- METS enables the mark up of front, cover, etc.
- METS is an international standard. It displays the hierarchical structure, the name and the location of the data storage and the metadata of objects. --> METS can be used for descriptive metadata as well as container format.
- Im Interesse weiterer Projekte (fuer die ggf. eine Foerderung der DFG beantragt werden koennte) ist METS nahezu zwingend. Alternativ zu diesem seitenorientierten Format kaeme TEI als dokumentorientiertes Format in Frage. Das MPI praeferiert eindeutig METS, da es den gegenwaertigen Anforderungen genuegt und einen geringeren Aufwand nach sich zieht. s. auch DFG-Praxisregeln, S. 17. 18.10.2007, S. Amedick
--> A METS import and export is needed. Therefore, an Mapping from the eSciDoc Container Format to METS is needed. This has to be written in XSLT (for exemple see the Mapping eSciDoc to DC.
Discussion[edit]
In general, an external format (like METS/eSciDoc) can be used in three different ways:
- importing digital objects in eSciDoc's native format
- importing from METS format - might be very problematic from Natasa's point of view, e.g. because METS is very broad and only a specific import for ViRR METS can be done
- supporting METS as native format in eSciDoc -> this would require a lot of redesign in the basic services. According to Malte there are related requirements coming from the GBV
- exporting to METS -> export is probably not very problematic
Questions:
- is the eSciDoc native format rich/flexible enough to represent the [structure of the] digital objects as required by MPIeR?
- If yes, does this mean we need to provide an offline editor for the eSciDoc native format ourselves?
Result:
This question is the mayor decision in the project and will influence the required/chosen implementation essentially. The decision needs to be taken until January 2008! We decided to prepare an detailed evaluation together with FIZ.