The METS Editorial Board is starting to think about what a METS 2.0
might look like / assess the need for a METS 2.0.
To that end, we have put together a little While Paper
Reimagining METS: An Exploration
http://bit.ly/cySIM1
suggested suplemental reading for Reimagining METS
http://bit.ly/96vaFO
From Nancy's message to the METS list
[T]here is a session planned to discuss the White Paper at the CLIR /
DLR Fall Forum (http://www.clir.org/dlf/forums/fall2010/index.html)
on Tuesday, November 2nd, from 4 - 5:30 pm PDT at the DLF Meeting site
in Palo Alto, California. While registration for that event is now
closed, discussions by anyone interested including METS Board members
will also occur on Wednesday afternoon at the open Board meeting, from
1:30 - 5 pm, PDT. An agenda for the open Board meeting on Wednesday
and Thursday can be found on the METS wiki at:
https://www.socialtext.net/mim-2006/index.cgi?agenda_3_4_november_2010_dlf_fall_forum.
If you are interested in attending this meeting in person, please
contact any of the Board members (see the METS website at
http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-board.html). We would like to
make the meeting available via web conferencing as well, if possible,
so please let a Board member know if you are interested in
participation in the meeting by that means.
I personally have questions about the need for a new XML Schema (w3c)
for METS, and I'd like to understand what the goal of the new METS is
before deciding what the form of a new METS is. Once, Mackenzie Smith
was suggesting investigating METS as an RDF schema. Maybe if METS
could be expressed in JSON, then they would be easy to work with from
javascript web apps? Could METS become a metamodel of digital object
existence that transcends the physical information serialization? Or,
do we just try to harmonize with MODS/MADS and EAD/TEI/DDI etc. as
they evolve as XML schema and wave at OAI-ORE? With alternatives to
the fileSec like bagIt out there, could METS stand to be more modular
so one maybe could keep the structMap in METS but point to files in a
bag?
Also, what about interoperability? This still seems like a good goal
to me, an interoperable standard for digital object where I can
"download" an object out of a repository and put it my own system
without having to worry about customizing my systems to work with your
stuff. METS sort of helps here, but ... not really that much more
than having stuff in XML.
What are your ideas about what direction METS should develop in to
best meet the needs of the code4lib community? What annoys you about
METS needs to be fixed? What about METS puzzles your? What do you
love about METS and would hate to see changed?
Thanks for any thoughts on this subject,
-- Brian Tingle, METS Editorial Board
some more METS related thoughts and links
http://tingletech.tumblr.com/tagged/mets
|
