Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CSIP80 - how to determine the CSIP structMap? #648

Closed
PhillipTommerholt opened this issue Mar 16, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #676
Closed

CSIP80 - how to determine the CSIP structMap? #648

PhillipTommerholt opened this issue Mar 16, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #676
Assignees

Comments

@PhillipTommerholt
Copy link
Contributor

CSIP80 states that "Each METS file must include ONE structural map element used exactly as described here." and then follows all the requirements for structMap.
The problem with the formulation of CSIP80 is that there is no way to determine if a structMap element is meant to live up to requirements CSIP81-112. There might be two structMap elements which only partially live up to the requirements and how would a validator know which one to validate?
In the testcase DILCISBoard/eark-ip-test-corpus@9710696 I have tried to combine CSIP82 and CSIP80 so that it is the mets/structMap[@Label='CSIP'] that determines that this is indeed a structMap-element that it stated to live up to all the requirements.

I suggest a reformulation of CSIP80 to something like:

Structural description of the package
mets/structMap
The <structMap> in the CSIP describes the highest logical structure of the IP.
Each METS file must include ONE structural map <structMap> element used exactly as described in the following requirements regarding the <structMap>
The way to identify the <structMap> element which follows all the structMap requirements is given in CSIP82.
Institutions can add their own additional custom structural maps as separate <structMap> sections. 
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants