The Australian METS Profile - A Journey about Metadata

Implementing PREMIS: A Case Study of the Florida Digital Archive

“…The research literature on digital preservation sheds little light on the complexities and barriers of metadata system implementation. The literature on PREMIS itself is not very extensive, encompassing definitional matters (Lavoie, 2004;Caplan and Guenther, 2005;McCallum, 2005;Caplan, 2009), general recommendations on implementing PREMIS (Lee et al, 2006), intended uses of PREMIS (Knight and Hedges, 2007), descriptions of PREMIS use by specific institutions (Dappert and Enders, 2008;Pearce et al, 2008), and guidelines for using PREMIS with the Metadata Encoding and Transfer Standard (METS) (Guenther and Xie, 2007;Guenther, 2008). Only two research articles present specific data on PREMIS implementation and speculate on the barriers that may hinder implementation of PREMIS.…”

Providing Metadata for Compound Digital Objects: Strategic Planning for an Institution's First Use of METS, MODS, and MIX

“…Time devoted to learning and using these complex standards, even in limited implementations, can pay dividends at a later time. Knowledge of METS may help prepare staff for future standards that share the same purpose of handling several types of metadata in one package (Pearce, Pearson, Williams, & Yeadon, 2008). It is also possible that another standard may grow out of METS that will incorporate technical, descriptive, structural, and other types of metadata into a single schema.…”

“…Facility with XML provides a foundation upon which staff may build knowledge of specific schemas and eases the learning curve when exploring new schemas expressed on the same platform. In addition to familiarity with the specifics of complex metadata schemas, the experience gained through the use of these rich standards benefits future projects in areas such as workflow and process planning (Pearce et al, 2008;Breytenbach & Groenewald, 2008) and development of best practices (Verheusen, 2008). Lessons learned about which facets of a given standard or schema worked, and which did not, may be applicable to future initiatives (Breytenbach & Groenewald, 2008).…”

“…What have others learned from their own METS implementations? In working toward establishing a "data commons," Pearce et al (2008) used METS in combination with Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS) as part of a series of profiles of increasing specificity in anticipation of use with other projects. METS was found to be the best available schema for encoding different types of metadata for a variety of complex digital objects.…”

“…Once the institution has clarified its metadata needs, the next step is deciding whether to adopt existing tools from the marketplace or to develop tools in house. Implementations at institutions with substantial technical resources utilized sophisticated METS generation tools tied to robust, multipart application systems created in house (Guerard & Chandler, 2006;Pearce et al, 2008;West et al, 2007). At the time the Sanborn project was being planned, there were few METS record-generation tools available.…”