Metadata Encoding and Transmission Brian Tingle -- Lightning talk
Use Case I work on access systems content from multiple campuses / departments It makes sense to me that different projects/domains may need different descriptive metadata Why does structure and file USE vocabulary need to be different?
METS is hard [popular system] Developer “I looked at METS for a couple of days and couldn’t figure it out” with a couple of notable exceptions, METS has not been widely adopted, represents a high bar for submission to CDL Merritt repository is model free; low bar for deposit, but strong desire for access layers on top of it
My METS 2.0 vision low bar; should be easy to do by hand if needed few choices; there should be one clear way to model something support pluggable access layers / repository interoperability leverage other standards and extant technology where possible
 
should we be developing a constellation of related standards, rather than one monolithic schema?
A way forward? simplified object model (theory of digital objects and description) that is divorced from serialization technology  standardize “USE” vocabulary/relationships for common digital library community use cases incrementally add more complexity based on actual use as optional extensions
Abstract Descriptive Unit (div) metadata describedBy set of binary digits (files) Abstract Descriptive Unit
some related experiments are here:  http://json4lib.readthedocs.org / javascript API for object access “objset”s can be physically nested in the JSON serialization, or included by JSON referencing used in production for new Calisphere slideshow widget

Mets2011 dlf lightning ppt

  • 1.
    Metadata Encoding andTransmission Brian Tingle -- Lightning talk
  • 2.
    Use Case Iwork on access systems content from multiple campuses / departments It makes sense to me that different projects/domains may need different descriptive metadata Why does structure and file USE vocabulary need to be different?
  • 3.
    METS is hard[popular system] Developer “I looked at METS for a couple of days and couldn’t figure it out” with a couple of notable exceptions, METS has not been widely adopted, represents a high bar for submission to CDL Merritt repository is model free; low bar for deposit, but strong desire for access layers on top of it
  • 4.
    My METS 2.0vision low bar; should be easy to do by hand if needed few choices; there should be one clear way to model something support pluggable access layers / repository interoperability leverage other standards and extant technology where possible
  • 5.
  • 6.
    should we bedeveloping a constellation of related standards, rather than one monolithic schema?
  • 7.
    A way forward?simplified object model (theory of digital objects and description) that is divorced from serialization technology standardize “USE” vocabulary/relationships for common digital library community use cases incrementally add more complexity based on actual use as optional extensions
  • 8.
    Abstract Descriptive Unit(div) metadata describedBy set of binary digits (files) Abstract Descriptive Unit
  • 9.
    some related experimentsare here: http://json4lib.readthedocs.org / javascript API for object access “objset”s can be physically nested in the JSON serialization, or included by JSON referencing used in production for new Calisphere slideshow widget