Hi Cristian and Piotr,
Il giorno dom, 12/06/2011 alle 22.08 +0200, Cristian Bacchi ha scritto:
> METS does support multiple file versions !! And also in the precise
> way you mentioned as an example :-)
unfortunately here there is a bit a misunderstanding in terminology. In
Invenio, a version is a synonym for revision (i.e. it's a particolar
point in the history of the document), while I think in METS, what you
are talking about with version is instead what we call format (i.e. the
mimetype, the file extension, etc.)
So the fact that METS seems not to support our concept of
version/revision, I am starting to think that either, as Piotr was
suggesting, we have then to support an extended proprietary
interpretation of METS, where we are able also to create links between
digital objects in a given point of time, or we might simply take
inspiration from METS in the uploading/importing of files, assuming that
if the imput is pure METS that it's related to digital objects in their
very last version, and we might in a second step support METS in
exporting, by generating it on the fly based again on the lastest
version/revision of the digital objects in Invenio.
>From a pragmatic point of view for Piotr('s deadline), Piotr, would it
be possible for you to take as much as possible in consideration the
possibilities and the syntax of METS, so that it might be possible in a
near future, to just wrap the whole thing in an import/export layer for
METS in an easy way. Of course since METS doesn't know about file
revisions his
> But, giving my two cents: this should be business of the
> descriptive-metadata layer !! If you have a multi-level MARC
> description (say: one mother-record of a review, with many
> child-records for the issues) you could, than, produce the METS
> records for the digitalized parts.
Yep, so that is a good hint for the exporting only part (which might
also be addressed also with OAI-ORE).
> I choose this quote of your mail to make an admission: indeed METS
> risks to be too much flexible and dispersive, and needs some decisions
> for its support. But it really doesn't lack of already existing
> extended profiles: please take a look to the actual registered
> profiles
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-registered-profiles.html.
>
>
>
>
> What level of support for METS did you have in mind ?
> Exporting data. importing in full format, importing in some
> subset of the format ?
>
>
> Maybe METS should not be native to Invenio but we should
> start with supporting the possibility to export data in this
> format ?
Indeed I think it would be nice to be able to export in METS (i.e. to
represent our data in METS), and since I was recognizing many
similarities with your proposal also to one day import in METS (at least
to understand part of it, and maybe storing the not understood part so
that it can be re-exported if needed).
Of course it's not possible for you timeframe to implement importing
METS support, but it would be important if anything that you are going
to implement will be possible to be extended to support METS.
> Obviously I don't propose replay to these organizational questions.
> I only tell you what I generally see in commercial solutions for
> digitization in italian document centers.
> - Quite every time, digital-metadata come with an asynchronous
> procedure from the descriptive-metadata population. (For example: book
> already catalogued, are afterwards digitized)
>[...]
> - and, consequently, the integration with the system for the physical
> storage
> - and, the integration with the online-access interface
>
> Thanks for reading this mail (it was only aimed to encourage in this
> very interesting topic)
Indeed these opens many topics and path of extensions for Invenio that
would be nice to address in the years to come :-)
Cheers,
Sam
--
Samuele Kaplun
Invenio Developer ** <http://invenio-software.org/>
