Validation module: General differentiation between Root and Representation METS?

[PhillipAasvangTommerholt]

The CSIP makes it possible to have a single METS.xml describing the whole package (called the Root METS) but the CSIP also allows to have METS.xml files in the representation folders (called Representation METS). When running the validator (v. 2.3.3) up against the test corpus it seems that the validator module is currently only build to validate Root METS. An example hereof can be found when validating this package. The validator only finds the CSIP21 error in the Root METS.xml, not the error in the Representation METS.xml

[prettybits]

I just observed a similar behavior, but the other way around in #161. Not sure if this is just inconsistent across different rules and depends on the rule in question or whether there's a pattern here.

Btw @PhillipAasvangTommerholt, if I may ask here, you say "called the Root METS", but the CSIP specification says and specifically points out in 5.1 that it is called "Package METS" ("root" seems to mainly be used for indicating the position within the folder hierarchy or when talking about the root element from an XML perspective). Just wondering if this is to be used interchangably in practice in which case it may warrant mention in the spec?

[PhillipAasvangTommerholt]

@prettybits I think it is me that is still stuck in an old terminology. I think I will need to call it Package METS accordingly with the CSIP :-)

[carlosjepard]

Hello Philip!
I have tested this, and it worked as expected. Please try it with this cli and use it on the sip i sent. (The package you mentioned had problems with the the sub mets)
The cli and sip are in following zip
CommonsIPTest.zip

[carlosjepard]

Hello Philip!
Do you have any updates regarding this issue?
Best regards!