Notes from METS Editorial Board meeting at Fall Digital Library
Federation Forum

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 7 - 8, 2007

Present: Brian, Patrick, Jenn, Cecilia, Rob, Tobias, Adam, Morgan,
Nancy, Robin, Rick, Nancy

Absent: Jerry, Richard, Susan, Markus

Guests: Trish Rose Sandler - UCSD, Matthew Walker - National Libr of
Australia, Jeff Sedlik - PLUS Coalition, Theodore Gerontakes -
UWashington, Rebecca Guenther -- Library of Congress.

**Agenda:**

Wednesday \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

-   Round Robin Updates (Board Members, Guests, as desired)

-   Request to endorse VRA Core schema (Rick)

-   METS v. 1.7 proposed changes

    -   Xlink harmonization among EAD, MODS, METS schemas (Brian)

    -   MDTYPE values; add values for specific PREMIS schemas

    -   Add MDVERSION attribute

-   Open Issues (Brian)

-   Followup from PREMIS / METS Best Practice discussion (Rob)

-   METS & Fedora \-- training & prospects (Patrick)

-   METS Training (Merrilee)

-   METS Documentation (Nancy, Cecilia)

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*Thursday

-   [METS Profile
    Revisions](http://www.socialtext.net/mim-2006/index.cgi?mets_profile_revisions)
    (Nancy)

-   Reports from Working Groups

    -   METS Web Page Redesign (Rick)

        -   [New METS Events
            Page](http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-events-draft.html)

        -   [Revised METS Example
            Page](http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-examples.html)

        -   [Walk-thru Revised METS
            wiki](http://www.socialtext.net/mim-2006/index.cgi?mets_wiki)

-   Proposed Changes to TextMD schema (Robin)

-   Meeting / Training / Events scheduling (Nancy)

-   Board Vacancy

> **NOTES from Meeting (thanks to Rick Beaubien!!):**

1)  Introductions and Round Robin Updates

    a.  Patrick Yott/ Brown has been in contact with the Fedora people
        to see if they're interested in a closer working relationship
        with METS as part of the soon to be announced Fedora 3.0
        architecture using content models.

    b.  Jenn Riley/ Indiana has been working with Fedora 2.0 in the
        context of Indiana's tool, the METS Navigator which has
        different requirements from Fedora.

> As a result of Jenn's involvement with TEI for serials, she has become
> interested in conflicts and lack of understanding between two
> communities.

c.  Rob Wolfe/ MIT has begun working on a new project to build an
    archive ontology for METS.

d.  (Guest) Trish Rose/ University of California at San Diego continues
    to work the VRA Core Data dictionary and schema and has come to the
    meeting to request an endorsement from the METS Board for it.

e.  (Guest) Matthew Walker/ National Library of Australia has been
    working on the Australian METS profile which has just been sent to
    the METS list and the METS Board. The idea behind the Australian
    METS profiles are to establish:

    1.  Core METS profile with extensions to deal with different kinds
        of material

        a.  Generic talks about objects as objects

        b.  Specific, sub-profiles contain more requirements for content
            or resource types and extensions for vocabulary, domain
            specific external schemas, and in general, more detail

        c.  Lessons learned

            i.  Importance of documentation/ examples

            ii. Involve implementers to develop an understanding among
                the stakeholders

f.  (Guest) Jeff Sedlik from the PLUS Coalition attended to learn more
    about METS in general, but also to learn about METS Rights and the
    VRA Core as his organization is interested interested in
    collaboration with Library and Archive groups.

g.  (Guest) Rebecca Guenther from the Library of Congress is attending
    to see how the METS Editorial Board does its business and to be
    present for any discussions about METS & PREMIS.

h.  Theodore Gerontakis from the University of Washington notes that the
    University of Washington is in the process of developing a profile
    for METS.

i.  Merrilee Proffit from OCLC announced that she has submitted her
    resignation from the METS Board. She explained that OCLC is
    interested in getting involved with newer initiatives, rather than
    mature ones such as METS. OCLC is still committed to the use of METS
    within its preservation repository, but does not necessarily need to
    be directly represented. Discussion followed of the implications for
    the loss of OCLC representation.

j.  Tobias Steinke: German National Library continues to use the METS
    profile that has previously been registered for long term
    preservation. He noted that a recent IPRES conference brought out
    the importance of PREMIS & METS in preservation context. In another
    context, Tobias is a representative in IIPC (International I for
    Internet Archiving -- name?). In that capacity, he has been trying
    to start a discussion with members on the feasibility of using METS
    in Web archiving. The only response is from New Zealand as their Web
    walker uses METS although with its own metadata schema. It would be
    useful to consider whether METS has a role to play in web archiving.
    In particular, the relationship to WARC/ARC needs to be worked out
    as WARC will be a metadata container in itself.

k.  Adam Farquhar from the British Library noted that the BL recently
    has been developing profiles for sound recordings, newspapers,
    ejournals and others. Over the next two years, he hopes to make METS
    the digital object format within the architecture for the BL. Other
    issues of concern for the BL include the use of PREMIS and METS
    together.

l.  Morgan Cundiff from the Library of Congress has been working on the
    new MIX version 1.1. Stephen Abrams from Harvard University has been
    working with him to make sure that the new version of the schema
    will work with newer versions of JHove. The new MIX schema will not
    be backwards compatible.

    i.  PREMIS concerns.

        1.  Tobias: Use MIX within PREMIS?

            a.  Rob: Does PREMIS want to be container schema? Some
                discussion.

    ii. Profiles: LC work very profile based.

        1.  Heading same direction as NLA: Main profile with extensions

    iii. Neck deep in METS production projects

m.  Nancy H.

    i.  Rights have come up as an issue related to the PLUS organization
        which works with creators for still images, and Archivist's
        Toolkit. Stay tuned.

    ii. RAMLET group work continues

        1.  Ontology expressed in OWL for METS, MPEG, IMS, Atom

    iii. Working on transfer manifests for Stanford as a METS profile.

n.  Robin Wendler

    i.  New projects:

        1.  finalizing web archiving profile: one or more ARC files

            a.  Will probably still use METS when WARC comes out

        2.  Google METS:

            a.  Will now provide everything in METS format. To produce
                public profile. METS will include physical structMap and
                file inventory.

        3.  Next generation repository with an eye on Fedora.

o.  Rick has been working on projects that will be reported upon later,
    but has also been making changes to the UCB profiles to include
    technical MD.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2)  VRA Core schema

    a.  Trish

        i.  This is a schema for descriptive metadata for images,
            particularly

        ii. Beta 4; Final version of schema: posted in summer

        iii. The VRA community is requesting that its schema be endorsed
             by the Board.

Discussion:

b.  Patrick:

    1.  Procedures for endorsement -- what are they?

        a.  Not documented: should do so. Also say what endorsement
            means?

c.  Adam: who uses the VRA schema?

    1.  Robin: Schema is only now available for first time since this
        past summer. Used to be data dictionary.

    2.  Patrick: Is ARTstore using VRA?

        a.  Trish & Robin: probably not. Structure really doesn't
            support it. Rather: CDWA Lite which has a flatter model than
            the "work---image" concept inherent in VRA.

Decision:

d.  Endorsed.

    i.  But more examples desirable. Patrick will provide some.

e.  Jenn: what about EAD, TEI? How can endorsement be moved forward.

f.  Tobias: There are a lot of schema out there. Absence of MDTYPE value
    may discourage use of METS.

g.  **[Action items:]{.underline}**

    i.  **[Need news item on VRA Core endorsement for the METS website.
        -- Rick will take to Glenn Gardner at LoC.]{.underline}**

    ii. **[Add VRA to list of endorsed desc md schema on METS website --
        Rick will take to Glenn Gardner at LoC]{.underline}**

    iii. **[Patrick to provide more examples for the METS
         website.]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3)  METS v.1.7

    a.  **Xlink harmonization among EAD, MODS, METS, i.e., pointing to
        same copy of the Xlink schema.**

        i.  Common schema is ready. EAD ready. MODS already use. Would
            provide greater ease of use among institutions using the 3
            schemas. Will require coordination among them if something
            needs to be changed.

            1.  Rick: will solve problem for LC hosted schema; but not
                necessarily others.

        ii. Issue of what if something turns out to be wrong about
            schema vis a vis W3C recommendations? Unknown what
            differences are, if any, from W3C recommendations.

        iii. Adam: need to say why we're making the changes.

             1.  Fixes XMLSpy problem

             2.  Fixes EAD incompatibility

        iv. Rick: when compliant, LC may want to advertise.

        v.  **Decision: OK. Brian, Morgan to communicate to EAD & MODS
            communities?**

    b.  **Need for par within seq.**

        i.  Jenn provided example to explain the need by describing a
            situation when one sound file fades into another sound
            file---all within a sequence of sound files/areas. Need seq
            within par for this case

        ii. Rick argued for symmetry between seq and par: make the
            \<choice\> unbounded.

        iii. **Decision: OK as revised**

    c.  **Proposal for new FILECORE attribute group:**

        i.  Would apply this to MDRef and MDWrap as well as file.

        ii. **Suggestion to add CREATED as well:**

        iii. **Decision: Yes to both.**

    d.  Adam: for next time: Need encoding as well as CHECKSUM &
        CHECKSUMTYPE. Needed to verify CHECKSUM. Consider adding
        ENCODING attribute. **Action Item: Adam will create a use case
        for consideration by the Board next time.**

    e.  Two new proposals:

        i.  **Add MDTYPE values specific to PREMIS sub-schema:
            PREMIS:OBJECT, PREMIS:AGENT, PREMIS:RIGHTS, PREMIS:EVENT**

            1.  Discussion of use of MDTYPE.

                a.  Some institutions use for making rough machine
                    distinctions.

            2.  **Decision: OKd by board**

            3.  Issue: Documentation

                a.  Need to make clear that not a closed list (**Note
                    from NH: I don't remember what this means; does
                    anyone else?)**

                b.  Need to be clear (always) on what all documentation
                    needs to be changed.

                c.  **Action Item: Robin to create checklist of what
                    needs to be changed when schema changes.**

            4.  Other concerns about possible rate of change of METS
                schema:

                a.  Could be a problem especially problem for people
                    working with Vendors (like Tobias) which requires
                    that the schema version be frozen.

                    i.  Need to limit the number of changes per year to
                        the schemas?

                    ii. Recommendation: try to get all of the MDTYPE
                        values that people might want to be added?

                    iii. Adam: Is there an issue related to the use of
                         colon in the schema? Perhaps this should be
                         changed to an underscore?

                    iv. Proposal needs to go out for review before
                        incorporating into 1.7 changes

        ii. **Add MDVersion to MDRef and MDWrap.**

            1.  What is the need? Why not use schema/schemaLocation.

            2.  Brian: add validator/validatortype to account for
                non-xml validation (for example wrapped MARC?)

            3.  Decision: Needs more discussion. Postpone decision to
                1.8

    f.  **Action: Brian will do all revisions except MDVersion. Send to
        Board first; then to METS List for two weeks review.**

4)  **METS and PREMIS**

    a.  PREMIS implementors to come up with revised best practices.

    b.  Request for separate amdSec section has gone away.

    c.  **Only change requests are those covered above.**

5)  **METS Profile Revisions---Brainstorming**

    a.  Jenn: Issue of how hard it is currently to tell whether a
        document TRULY conforms to a profile.

    b.  Basic questions about profiles:

        i.  What do we mean about interoperability, if that's what
            Profiles are to encourage?

        ii. How do profiles succeed in facilitating interoperability?

        iii. What does Machine actionable mean?

        iv. What is relationship of "machine actionable" to "conformance
            testing"?

    c.  General comments:

        i.  Need for this:

            1.  Patrick: experience suggests current way of profiling
                woefully inadequate.

            2.  Adam: important as way of documenting what's needed.
                Machine actionability not immediate concern. But
                software (like METS Navigator) may drive this need.

            3.  Tobias: Needed to encourage exchange of objects between
                institutions. Also to encourage vendors to develop
                tools. Need for exchange format profile.

            4.  Patrick: Need for way of getting local conformance---but
                may be separate issue from profile. What people intend
                to do with their METS makes a big difference.

            5.  Consensus: Need to carry forward. Postpone discussion
                until tomorrow.

6)  **METS and Fedora: Patrick**

    a.  Trying to get documentation on what will be covered in Fedora
        3.0

    b.  Content models: Objects will subscribe to content models.

    c.  3.0 may bring up backwards compatibility issue

        i.  May open up discussions on incorporating more METS structure
            into Fedora

        ii. Possible implications for behaviorSec in METS

    d.  Other issues:

        i.  Still forces use of METS v.1.4 to submit to Fedora

        ii. Connection with profiles: profiles as representations of
            classes of objects. Fedora content models may be related to
            METS profiles.

    e.  Jenn:

        i.  Indiana has a very different uses of METS for submission and
            dissemination with respect to Fedora. May be useful to have
            a better understanding?

    f.  Nancy: Fedora's ability to express relationship between objects.
        Is this changing in 3.0? Patrick: Not that he's heard.

    g.  Adam: Is there something we should be doing with respect to the
        Fedora community and developers?

        i.  Patrick: probably nothing we can do until we know what
            Fedora 3.0 has to offer.

    h.  METS and Fedora issues:

        i.  Lots of METS people using Fedora.

        ii. Merrilee: Time to get a read on what issues Fedora users
            among the METS community may have. Maybe do a survey on METS
            list.

        iii. Brian: Possibly we can work together on content model issue
             and relationship with METS profile.

    i.  **Action item: Patrick will survey METS and Fedora lists on
        concerns about the use of METS with Fedora.**

7)  **Documentation.**

    a.  It's out -- Yes!

    b.  Status:

        i.  PDF with 1.6 is out

        ii. Hoping for print on demand option with ISBN: Barrie Howard
            is exploring for DLF generally with METS Primer as specific
            example for use.

        iii. Files themselves are in MS Word, Omnigraffle for images.
             Currently in NH possession. Need to find best place to keep
             them.

        iv. We need to see if we need to make changes (formatting) for
            print on demand.

    c.  Question:

        i.  What to do about changes for 1.7?

            1.  Has implications for ISBN.

            2.  May want to do an addendum.

            3.  May want just to change online version---ISBN would only
                apply to print on demand.

            4.  **Action Item: Robin will develop cookbook for where
                changes need to be made now that things have settled
                down.**

8)  **METS Training**

    a.  Options for creating "METS by hand" tutorial discussed. No
        decisions as yet. Will be discussed as part of video tutorial
        subgroup.

9)  **METS profile discussion (cont'd from Wednesday )**

    a.  Patrick: appendix examples vs pointers

        i.  Brian: so they can't be tweaked/adjusted later

        ii. Patrick & Morgan: cumbersome

        iii. Rick: submit examples separately from the profiles

    b.  Nancy: think about profiles more broadly. If profiles are to
        encourage interoperability, what do we mean by interoperability.
        See outline for discussion on METS wiki site at:
        <http://www.socialtext.net/mim-2006/index.cgi?mets_profile_revisions>
        .

    c.  Tobias: if machine actionable is goal, then maybe format of
        profile may not be so important. Need to think first about what
        easy for machine actionability and implement these features
        first.

    d.  Nancy: Reviewed definitions of interoperability as posted on the
        METS wiki.

    e.  Jenn/Robin: Harvard/Indiana interoperability test defined
        interoperability as ability to receive, rearrange, but convert
        to original format for return.

        i.  Really wanted to develop common profile for SIPs for
            exchange. Didn't happen.

    f.  Brian/Patrick: Is interoperability really the goal of the
        profile? Really interoperability is the goal of METS.

    g.  Profile as facilitator for exchange. Also can express
        requirements for particular tool.

    h.  Adam: XML/METS provide already a certain set of rules. Profiles
        provide additional rules, because METS is so flexible. Why? To
        ease exchanges of METS.

    i.  Problem: some things can be made machine actionable, some not.

    j.  Robin: Need to figure out what is machine actionable and
        abstract that out so that it can be used, as far as possible, to
        check conformance.

    k.  Rob & Nancy: Profile provides basis for vendor work. Profiles as
        documentation for vendors/providers. How to prepare a METS
        manifest for a particular system.

    l.  Tobias: more formal vocabulary might help.

    m.  Issue: not everything can be made machine actionable. Need to
        identify what can be made machine actionable and provide some
        mechanism for machine actionability.

        i.  Nancy: TELCERT provides a suite of tools to help you build
            profile and then build a local schema that enforces the
            profile and then test local schema for conformance to parent
            schema. Tools are open source. We may want to take a look at
            this.

    n.  Jenn and others: We've been hearing that profile development
        process needs to be made easier. But we're talking about making
        it more complex---once we decide what we want to accomplish then
        we can talk about tools.

    o.  Matthew: problem of work needed to take in METS conforming to
        another profile. Great need to make METS profiles (and METS)
        easier to use. Need for an API generic enough to implement
        different profiles and that could facilitate to translate
        between profiles.

        i.  Adam: we would be better off spending our time developing an
            API that would facilitate making METS.

    p.  Jenn: Need first to develop a formal vocabulary for expressing
        constraints then develop reference implementation.

    q.  **Action items: need to go through schema and current profiles
        and figure out what lends itself to expression in some more
        formal structure/language and hence to machine actionability.**

    r.  Patrick: use of XSLT as validator?.

    s.  Brian: Levels of profiles?

        i.  Patrick: better just 2: profile and a validation structure.

    t.  Need for better mechanism for linking profiles: base and
        extensions

    u.  **Action: Work group to work on profiles. But will allow others
        to join in as they wish in phone conferences. The work group
        is:**

        i.  **Rob**

        ii. **Jenn---co leader**

        iii. **Rick**

        iv. **Tobias**

        v.  **Morgan**

        vi. **Patrick**

        vii. **Brian: co-leader**

        viii. **Nancy**

10) **TextMD for character/line/page flow.**

    a.  Using TextMD in conjunction with page images for this purpose

    b.  Would be referenced from \<div\>

    c.  Adam: ODF has some of these elements (Open Document Format).

        i.  **Action item: Robin will look into at least for alignment
            purposes.**

    d.  Page sequence issue: pertains specifically to \<div\>.

        i.  Rick: seems almost like it belongs in the \<structMap\> as
            an attribute.

        ii. Patrick: may be useful for non-text materials

        iii. Would div ORDER attribute serve the same purpose?

             1.  Robin: problem if ORDER value is set by mass
                 digitization vendor?

        iv. Two structMaps? logical and physical? too expensive.

        v.  Attribute on div?

            1.  Maybe VIEWORDER?

    e.  Home of TextMD: Eric S. has asked LC to take over.

        i.  Morgan: LC has decided it does make sense for LC to take
            over. Sally has approved. Clay Redding will take it on.

            1.  **Robin will contact Clay for edits.**

    f.  **Action: Robin will rework.**

11) **METS Website.**

    a.  Registry:

        i.  Jenn recommends including links to example documents from
            Registry entries

    b.  Examples page.

        i.  Abstract.

        ii. Possible categories::

            1.  Content types (subtypes)

                a.  Compact disc

                b.  Sheet music

                c.  Book

            2.  Generic

            3.  Purpose driven categories:

                a.  Preservation

                b.  Presentation

        iii. Adam: categorize what is there.

        iv. Live examples.

            1.  Include link to xslt rendering or description of xslt
                processing

            2.  include thumbnail.

        v.  Integrated examples pages or separate live examples page?

            1.  Better have 2 example pages.

        vi. **Morgan will take care of assembling live examples pages.**

            1.  **Rick will check on whether UCB can provide live
                examples**

            2.  **Morgan will solicit from METS community via the METS
                list after preliminary issues worked out.**

        vii. Link to examples from profiles page. Ability to add on more
             examples later on. Constructed examples?

    c.  WIKI suggestions

        i.  Problem getting people to use.

        ii. Adam: have mailing list "watch" the page.?

            1.  Jenn: too much?

12) **Procedures for Board vacancy (to replace Merrilee)**

    a.  Tobias: Does person represent institution or themselves? If
        person changed institution would they still be on Board?

        i.  Right now oriented more toward person than institution.

    b.  Need to look at Fedora, open repositories, to see if they feel
        they should be represented? Possibly vendors?

    c.  Need to follow our rules: put out call. OK to solicit
        applications of people we'd like?

    d.  **Patrick will work with Nancy on heading next candidate
        review.**

13) **Other Board member issues:**

    a.  Morgan: Implement liaison concept? For example, liaison with
        OCLC to replace Merrilee's loss.

    b.  Want to have liaisons with other groups?

    c.  **Action: Nancy will talk with Merrilee about being liaison.**

14) **Next meetings.**

    a.  **Minneapolis in Spring: Board would probably meet Wed., April
        30- Thurs., May 1 after DLF.**

    b.  **Phone conferences. Nancy will send out dates for next set of
        phone conferences.**

15) **Events:**

    a.  Is there still interest in European event in conjunction with
        Italian members of METS community? (Angela d'Iorio, organizer)
        in Fall 2008 or Spring 2009? Focus would be on METS education &
        comparison with MAG, but also include a PREMIS component. Could
        be done in conjunction with a conference in Denmark (the
        European Conference on Research & Advanced Technology for
        Digital Libraries in September. The METS / MAG / PREMIS event
        would be held in Rome.

        i.  Other possibilities:

            1.  IPRES in London: but Europe METS Reps would prefer not
                at same time as IPRES if the METS event is in Rome

            2.  DLF in Amsterdam in Spring 2009

        ii. **Decision: Board is interested in pursuing; but
            representation from U.S. Board members may be problematic.**