 |
 |
I would echo that reference to METS. It does allow you to carry the descriptive metadata in MODS, but also to explicitly associate access restrictions with specific files. We've had success with recording information about individual files in a relational database, along with pointers to bibliographic information. That serves as the database of record and point of maintenance. Then we can automatically generate METS files from that. Best, -Tod Tod Olson <[log in to unmask]> Systems Librarian University of Chicago Library On Sep 6, 2013, at 6:15 AM, Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Patrick- > > There are some things in MODS that are close to addressing this problem, for example you could create a part wrapper around each file, but my reading of the docs says that may not be the intended use of the part element (depending in part on whether the files represent different physical objects or not). The other strategy used to coordinate elements in MODS is the altRepGroup attribute (where the location, physicalDecription and accessCondition elements for one file would all get the same altRepGroup attribute value). But that seems to be for multiple versions of the same content (e.g., titles in different translations/etc., internal note and link to external HTML version of the same note, etc.), which doesn't necessarily seem like a good fit here. But you may be able to use one of those strategies. > > At UC San Diego, we use our own locally-developed model, based in part on MODS. One of the things we've added is a component class within a digital object to handle any kind of structure, including multiple files, nested hierarchy, etc. When we export to METS, we would make one MODS record for the object, and then a separate MODS document for each component, and then link them using the METS structmap. To stay completely within MODS, you could also use relatedItem to link multiple MODS records. > > For a better encoding of the restrictions and embargo dates, you may want to add PREMIS, which has a better vocabulary for describing those things. > > -Esme > -- > Esme Cowles <[log in to unmask]> > > "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the > argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt, 1783 > > On 09/6/2013, at 3:11 AM, Patrick Hochstenbach <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I need some advise on creating MODS records for our institutional repository. In particular I wonder how best to express the different access restrictions on digital files when a record contains more than one full-text file. E.g. what we do now is write something like: >> >> <location> >> <url displayLabel="ruimtelijk_bestuursrecht_Geert_13-12-10.pdf">https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/1927382/file/1927384</url> >> </location> >> <physicalDescription> >> <internetMediaType>application/pdf</internetMediaType> >> </physicalDescription> >> <accessCondition type="restrictionOnAccess">restricted (changes to open on 2016-01-01)</accessCondition> >> >> and this repeated for every full-text file in the record >> >> I don't like this solution because: >> >> 1. This make the MODS context-sensitive: the order of local, physical, accessCondition has a meaning (the first accessCondition is for the first location, the second accessCondition ois for the second loaction etc etc). >> As I understand the order of elementents in MODS shouldn't matter. >> 2. Access conditions and embargo's are free-text! >> >> Are there best practices we should use? >> >> Greetings from Belgium >> Patrick >> >> Ghent University Library