1
|
|
2
|
- Components of process
- Results of process as recorded in METS using mdRef
- “Collection level” output created, (but not included in METS)
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
- Format score matrix
- Uses Fleischauer / Arms criteria for sustainability
- Quality Policy Matrix
- Stanford preferred formats
- fileFormat.xsd (file format identification)
- sdrFormatStatusDefaults.xml (default values for quality policies &
preferred formats)
- fileFormatStatus.xsd (scoring factors, format score value, preservation
quality, policy status
|
6
|
|
7
|
- 2. Preservation assessment
categories of known risk factors
- preservationAssessmentFlags.xsd (structures used to record “red flags”
that are to be searched from Jhove output)
- preservationAssessmentFlags.xml (data about red flags used for input)
|
8
|
|
9
|
- 3. Stanford digital repository
digital provenance output
- sdrDigiprov.xsd (structures used to document digiprov information)
- Output:
- sdrDigiprov output for one file
- sdrDigiprovSummary (summary for a “collection”)
|
10
|
- Results of process recorded of preservation analysis in METS per file
by:
- Sequence of amdSec elements for all files in a collection containing:
- JHove output
- SDR Preservation Assessment output
|
11
|
- <amdSec ID="AMD_2.01.002.2.01">
- <techMD ID="TECH_2.01.002.2.01"
CREATED="2004-12-27T07:10:12">
- <mdRef ID="JHOVE_2.01.002.2.01" LOCTYPE="URL"
xlink:type="simple"
xlink:href="./METADATA/AIHT- CONTENT/CONTRIBUTORS/1199_photos/wtc_web/jhov e_2.01.002.2.01.xml"
MDTYPE="OTHER" OTHERMDTYPE="jhove"
LABEL="./AIHT- CONTENT/CONTRIBUTORS/1199_photos/wtc_web/WTC1. jpg"/>
- </techMD>
|
12
|
|
13
|
|
14
|
|
15
|
- <dig:agent>#1
- <dig:agentIdentifier
- <dig:agentIdentifierValue="Empirical_Walker_v1"
- <dig:agentIdentifierScheme="SDR_SWAgent_v1"/>
|
16
|
- <dig:object
- <dig:objectIdentifier objectIdentifierValue=".\test
files\1015.pjpeg"
- <dig:objectIdentifierScheme="Collection_Relative_Path"/>
- <dig:objectCharacteristics>
- <dig:compositionLevel>0</dig:compositionLevel>
- <dig:fixitycheckValue="ae45d7c040936f16d1eb0b47764fa0ba” checkMethod="MD5"/>
- <dig:size>31137</dig:size>
- </dig:objectCharacteristics>
|
17
|
- </dig:format>
- <dig:formatStatus>
- <fil:scoringFactors adoption="true"
disclosure="true" transparency="true"
selfDocumentation="false"
externalDependencies="true"
- <fil:formatScore scoringValue="1"
- <fil:preservationQuality qualityValue="StatusQuality_High"
- <fil:policyStatus policyValue="StatusPolicy_Approved
- </dig:format>
|
18
|
- <dig:preservationRisk>
- <dig:flagRaised flagType="JPEG_ProgressiveEncoding">
- <dig:test feature="property"
path="JPEGMetadata:Images:Image:Scans" compare="any
value" datatype="integer"/>
- <dig:valuesFound> <value>1</value> </dig:valuesFound>
- <dig:recommendation action="RiskAssessment_TransformFormat">
- <transformation
newFormatName="JPEG2000" transformationEffects="Preserves
image data in a "standard" format expected to gain in
preservation quality, and policy status, as adoption increases; benefits
of progressive encoding may not be retained."/>
- <transformation newFormatName="JPEG"
transformationEffects="Image data retained in a format closer to de
facto baseline; greater software compatibiilty; benefits of progressive
encoding will not be retained in the conversion."/>
- </dig:preservationRisk>
|
19
|
- Other output information created with potential for recording:
- SDR Preservation analysis for “collection”
|
20
|
- Formats by format name
- Format verification information (verified, by extension, mismatch,
unknown)
- Format score by preservation quality and status
- Preservation risk by “red flags” raised per format type with reasons
- File names of unknown formats & “red flags” raised (sdrSummaryCollections.txt)
|
21
|
- Rationale for using mdRef:
- A separate metadata file hierarchy mirrored file hierarchy of the AIHT
collection; kept down the size
of the METS document (which were HUGE)
- Provided more granularity in cases where edits or replacement of the
metadata for a single file was needed
- Allowed more efficient access mechanisms provided by the filesystem
instead of the slower access methods of current generation XML tools
- Disadvantages to export library:
- Required much more resource to process
- More difficult to manage the correlation of metadata per file with the
inventory and logical and physical structures within the METS document
|
22
|
|
23
|
|