 |
 |
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