Dear Tom -
Thank you for your thorough and considered response. I feel that this is
exactly the kind of feedback and discussion that the PREMIS initiative
will benefit from. On many of you're questions, I feel I have to defer to
other more involved parties, but I think it might be helpful if I
addressed some of the points you raise.
The draft you pointed to is definitely the starting point for review.
That page is dated Feb. 1 2005. I don't believe it has any formal status
in the context of DCMI. The authors seem to be the PREMIS group as a
whole, whose membership can be found here:
http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/pmwg/membership.htm. Rebecca, or
someone else from the PREMIS initiative, can probably provide more info
regarding the context of the current call for comments.
There is essentially no final deliverable in DCMI terms. The PREMIS
initiative has developed two documents currently in draft form and in need
of input from more of the metadata community at large. The first is a
report on PREMIS activities and an introduction to the element set. The
second is a set of base level preservation metadata elements.
In my opinion, the second of these is an incredibly significant document.
There have been no other efforts that I'm aware of to date to provide a
generic core for preservation metadata. There are many specific
initiatives that provide frameworks for format specific preservation
metadata, but nothing that can be generalized beyond a given format.
The PREMIS data dictionary is loosely based on the principles of the Open
Archival Information System [OAIS] reference model:
http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/wwwclassic/documents/pdf/CCSDS-650.0-B-1.pdf.
I tend to think that the PREMIS work to devise an element set that
provides a practical application of the more conceptual and abstract OAIS
model is incredibly important. Most of the development in this area is
happening outside of the DCMI, but I think there is a great deal of value
for DCMI to have a working group that maintains an awareness of and
has an impact on these continuing developments.
I think it's important to keep in mind that PREMIS's work is completely
external to the DCMI. Their report is in no way the report of a Working
Group. Rather, this is an attempt of an external initiative to get
feedback from the DCMI community. Whether the Preservation Working Group
will develop a draft report based on PREMIS' work is a question I'll defer
to Andrew and Hilde. I'm more inclined to think of this as a fortuitous
result of Rebecca and Andrew being involved in both PREMIS and in DCMI.
It is an opportunity for PREMIS's activities to be informed by the current
discussions taking place in the DC Libraries and DC Architecture groups
about the compatibility of RDF and XML based metadata schema. It is an
opportunity to have an influence on PREMIS's work before it s finalized,
so that it may be ensured that future compatibility with the DCMES is not
impeded by problems similar to those that are currently being discussed
around the attempts of the DC Libraries group's incorporation of MODS
elements in its Application Profile.
Again, whether this document is considered a specification advancing
towards standardization and what the impact of the Feb. 25 deadline is are
issues that I can't answer and must defer to Rebecca. I can say that,
regardless of what status OCLC and RLG give to these reports when the
comment period ends, people will want to begin implementing the element
set. There seems to be a great deal of need for a standard to define
preservation metadata, and as soon as there is some kind of officially
sanctioned element set, people will be inclined to use it. Many of these
people will be trying to map, merge or otherwise get these elements to
coexist with existing Dublin Core metadata. From that perspective, I
think it would be useful to get as much feedback the DCMI community as
possible. Ideally, this feedback would be received before the Feb 25
deadline. Whether there's any wiggle room on that deadline is a matter
for the PREMIS group to determine.
I hope that your email and my response will elicit further discussion. I
hope that this discussion might prove the basis of some valuable comments
on and input into PREMIS's work. Thanks for taking the time to ask these
questions on this list.
Sincerely,
Corey A Harper
Metadata Librarian - CMET Team Leader
Metadata and Digital Library Services
University of Oregon
541/346.1854
[log in to unmask]
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Thomas Baker wrote:
> Dear Corey,
>
> I have been aware of PREMIS for awhile, though my attempt
> to get up to speed last November was frustrated when the
> PDF file of the OCLC/RLG survey report did not print out
> here (the technicians at OCLC figured it was a European/US
> incompatibility, itself a bit worrying from a preservation
> standpoint...).
>
> So I feel should know this already, but will ask anyway:
> What is the basic context of the current call for comments?
> The draft at http://premis.lib.uchicago.edu:8888/premis/53
> looks like it should be the starting point for review, but
> the document itself does not have a date, authors, links to
> previous versions, or an explanation of its status (at least
> not in the header). Skimming through the Introduction and
> Conclusion, I see that some of this context is explained
> there, but not (at least, not obviously) in answer to my
> basic question of what the review is meant to do and what
> the status of the ultimate deliverable would be.
>
> On the face of it, I take this to be the report of a Working
> Group, and after review that report would be finalized --
> as a report. If it is more than a report -- i.e., if it is
> already considered a specification advancing towards a sort
> of standardization -- then I would want to look at it even
> more closely from a number of standpoints.
>
> On one level, it would appear to constitute another "core
> of elements" in the vocabulary landscape (alongside DC,
> FOAF, SKOS, and others), so I would want to understand
> better the underlying data model, maintenance policies,
> use of identifiers, and such. For example, there has been
> a very lucid and long-overdue discussion this past week on
> DC-ARCHITECTURE about the subtle difficulties of mixing and
> matching "properties" (in an RDF sense) with "elements"
> (in the XML sense) in an open Semantic Web environment,
> and I would want to understand where PREMIS stands in that
> regard.
>
> However, I'm expecting that such a close reading would
> take some time and possibly raise significant issues,
> and the deadline is less than a week away. In sum -- and
> again, I feel I should already know this -- but what is the
> significance of the February 25 deadline with regard to the
> long-term standardization (assuming that is the goal) of a
> PREMIS data dictionary?
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:40:05AM -0800, Corey Harper wrote:
> > It occurs to me that I volunteered to coordinate this group's comments on
> > the PREMIS Report and Element Set during the DC meeting in Shanghai.
> >
> > I'm guessing some of you may have already responded directly to Rebecca per
> > her 1 Feb. email. If anyone is still looking to comment, I'd gladly
> > summarize any comments that are submitted to the list, so long as they come
> > through a couple of days prior to next Friday's deadline.
> >
> > I plan to finish working through the draft documents with some colleagues
> > here, who are also on the Preservation WG Listserv, and hope to have my own
> > set of comments ready by Friday as well.
> >
> > Alternately, it looks like we do have a Wiki set up
> > (http://dublincore.org/preservationwiki) and this kind of collaborative
> > group review process seems like it might be well suited to the Wiki
> > environment. There may be some concerns about using it for this purpose,
> > as it doesn't seem to be pass-worded or otherwise secured. Then again, it
> > isn't linked from anywhere either, so it's unlikely that anyone outside of
> > this group will accidently stumble across it.
> >
> > Let me know what you all think, and as I said, I'd be happy to help
> > facilitate getting group comments together.
> >
> > My apologize for not making this offer on list sooner.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > -Corey
> >
> > ----------
> > Corey A Harper
> > Metadata Librarian - CMET Team Leader
> > Metadata and Digital Library Services
> > University of Oregon
> > 541/346.1854
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>edu
> >
> >
> >
> > At 02:20 PM 2/17/2005, you wrote:
> > >This is a reminder that comments are due on the PREMIS work next
> > >week. Original date was Feb. 21, but we will extend that until
> > >Fri. Feb. 25.
> > >
> > >There is now a section on the PREMIS final report page that lists the
> > >changes that we know are needed in the final report and data dictionary.
> > >
> > >Thank you for your input.
> > >
> > >Rebecca
> > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> > >^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> > >^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
> > >^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
> > >^^ Library of Congress ^^
> > >^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> > >^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> > >^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> > >^^ ^^
> > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:27:37 -0500 (EST)
> > >From: Rebecca S. Guenther <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Subject: PREMIS final report and data dictionary
> > >
> > >We are pleased to announce the initial completion of the PREMIS final
> > >report and data dictionary. These documents are for review by the PREMIS
> > >Working Group, Advisory Commitee, and other invited experts before a more
> > >general world-wide review. The documents still require final editing and
> > >formatting. There are 3 documents:
> > >
> > >1. PREMIS Final Report
> > >This narrative gives a summary of the activities of the PREMIS working
> > >group and is an introduction to the PREMIS data dictionary. It explains
> > >many of the decisions that the Core elements subgroup made when developing
> > >the data dictionary, details the data model used, and defines
> > >terminology. It should be read prior to reviewing the data dictionary.
> > >
> > >2. PREMIS Data Dictionary
> > >This document is a complete specification of data elements (called
> > >"semantic units") that make up this core preservation metadata element
> > >set. It includes element names, definitions, applicability, repeatability,
> > >obligation, examples, creation/maintenance notes, and usage notes. The
> > >data dictionary is organized by type of entity, as explained in the data
> > >model.
> > >
> > >3. Examples
> > >There will be selected full examples for various types of digital objects.
> > >This section is not yet completed, but will be shortly. We will announce
> > >the availability of the examples in a separate message.
> > >
> > >To access the documents go to:
> > >http://premis.lib.uchicago.edu:8888/premis
> > >This site is password protected.
> > >Login: premis
> > >Password: promise
> > >Then click on Review Draft of PREMIS Final Report
> > >
> > >How to send comments
> > >Comments may be sent to this list (premis-all or DC preservation). If you
> > >prefer, you may send personally to Rebecca Guenther ([log in to unmask]) and
> > >Priscilla Caplan ([log in to unmask]).
> > >
> > >Deadline
> > >Please send all comments within 3 weeks, by Feb. 21.
> > >
> > >Thank you all for your participation.
>
> --
> Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
> Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
> Personal email: [log in to unmask]
>
|
