Hi Stuart,

Thanks for looking at the OCFL beta. The essence of the problem 
statement is to create "an application-independent approach to the 
**storage** of digital information in a structured, transparent, and 
predictable manner" for use in repositories. Just yesterday a slightly 
more extensive background appeared as a result of last year's Open 
Repositories presentation on OCFL:

https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/39/htm

I highlighted **storage** in the above because that is the key 
difference between the metadata standards you quote and OCFL. The native 
"metadata" in OCFL is minimal, just enough to handle an inventory of 
content with support for efficient object versioning. It is thus 
somewhat related to the file inventory component of METS, though more 
closely related to past work on Moab and BagIt.

OCFL objects will usually contain both content datastreams and metadata, 
the metadata may well use METS, MARC, DC, etc. but the packaging format 
is not prescriptive on what should be used.

Cheers,
Simeon



On 6/4/19 3:47 PM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
> Is there a clear statement of the problem OCFL is trying to solve? I'm
> a third of the way through and it looks like METS with JSON replacing
> XML and all references to existing metadata schemas (MARC, dublin
> core, etc) stripped.
> 
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 02:25, Andrew Woods <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> The Oxford Common File Layout (OCFL) specification describes an
>> application-independent approach to the storage of digital information in a
>> structured, transparent, and predictable manner. It is designed to promote
>> standardized long-term object management practices within digital
>> repositories.
>>
>> For those following the OCFL initiative or those generally interested in
>> current community practice related to preservation persistence, you will be
>> pleased to know that the OCFL 0.3 beta specification has been released and
>> is now ready for your detailed review and feedback!
>> - https://ocfl.io/0.3/spec/
>>
>> Twenty four issues [1] have been addressed since the 0.2 alpha release
>> (February, 2019). Beyond editorial/clarifying updates, the more substantive
>> changes in this beta release include:
>> - Flexibility of directory name within version directories for holding
>> content payload [2]
>> - Optional “deposit” directory at top of Storage Root as draft workspace [3]
>> - Expectation of case sensitivity of file paths and file names [4]
>>
>> Within the 90 day review period until September 2nd, please review the
>> specification and implementation notes and provide your feedback either as
>> discussion on the ocfl-community [5] mailing list or as GitHub issues [6].
>>
>> The monthly OCFL community meetings [7] are open to all (second Wednesday
>> of every month @11am ET). Please join the conversation, or simply keep your
>> finger on OCFL’s pulse by lurking!
>>
>> More detail and implementation notes can be found at https://ocfl.io.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew Woods, on behalf of the OCFL editorial group
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/OCFL/spec/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+closed%3A2019-02-18..2019-06-03+
>> [2] https://github.com/OCFL/spec/issues/341
>> [3] https://github.com/OCFL/spec/issues/320
>> [4] https://github.com/OCFL/spec/issues/285
>> [5] [log in to unmask]
>> [6] https://github.com/ocfl/spec/issues
>> [7] https://github.com/OCFL/spec/wiki/Community-Meetings