Museums and the Online Archive of California (MOAC) builds
on existing standards and their implementation guidelines provided by the
Online Archive of California (OAC) and its parent organization, the California
Digital Library (CDL). Setting project standards for MOAC consisted of
interpreting existing OAC/CDL documents and adapting them to the projects
specific needs, while at the same time maintaining compliance with OAC/CDL
guidelines. The present overview over the MOAC technical standards references both
the OAC/CDL umbrella document and the MOAC implementation / adaptation document
at the beginning of each section, as well as related resources which provide
more detail on project specifications.
The project implements specifications for digital image production,
as well as three interlocking file exchange formats for delivering collections,
digital images and their respective metadata. Encoded Archival Description
(EAD) XML describes the hierarchy of a collection down to the item-level and
traditionally serves for discovering both the collection and the individual
items within it. For viewing multiple images associated with a single object
record, MOAC utilizes Making of America 2 (MOA2) XML. MOA2 makes the images
representing an item available to the viewer through a navigable table of
contents; the display mimics the behavior of the analog item by e.g. allowing
end-users to browse through the pages of an artist's book. Through the further
extension of MOA2 with Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) Lite XML, not only does
every single page of the book display in its correct order, but a transcription
of its textual content also accompanies the digital images.
Both technical standards and their implementation by the OAC
have undergone a number of changes since the outset of the MOAC project in
1999. For example, MOAC started out as an EAD SGML project, yet migrated to XML
as soon as the OAC allowed submissions in the emerging format. As a coveted
side effect, MOAC has replaced the use of character entities for special
characters with UTF-8 (Unicode Transformation Format) encoding, a standard
recommended for use with XML. A UTF-8 encoded XML document assigns a unique
number to any of the special characters covered in the Unicode specifications
(95,221 as of Unicode 3.2). The client will see the correct character displayed
as long as their font contains the corresponding glyph.
An even more profound paradigm shift in terms of metadata
encoding, submission and display comes in the form of the new digital object
standard METS (Metadata Encoding and Transcription Standard). Although the CDL
has not yet officially adopted METS, information on the most recent
developments and how the new format may shape MOAC in the future can be found
in the digital objects section of this document. These two instances of fairly
significant changes in the project's specifications may serve as a gentle reminder
that despite its solid foundation in standards, the MOAC information
architecture will continue to face the challenge of an ever-changing technical
environment.
2. Digital Image Production
OAC/CDL Standards:
Digital Image Format Standards (July 9, 2001) [PDF]
http://www.cdlib.org/about/publications/CDLImageStd-2001.pdf
Best Practices for Image
Capture (February 2001) [PDF]
http://www.cdlib.org/about/publications/BestPracticeImageCapture.pdf
CDL Digital Object Standard:
Metadata, Content and Encoding (May 18,
2001) [PDF]
http://www.cdlib.org/about/publications/CDLObjectStd-2001.pdf
Related Resources:
Daniel L. Johnston. A
Simplified Standard Method of Digital Image Tonal Capture for Archival Project.
PICS 2002: IS&T's PICS Conference. Portland, Oregon, 2002. p. 210-213
The MOAC project standard for digital imaging consists of
two components: a baseline standard for digital still image master files and
derivatives, and a standard for digital imaging metadata. The standard for
digital still image masters and derivatives fully complies with the Digital
Image Format Standards.
2.1 Digital Still Images and Derivatives
|
|
Resolution
|
File Format
|
Color Target
|
|
Master
|
> 600 ppi or 3000 pixels
/ longest (whichever possible / yields bigger file size) OR 20 MB target
|
TIFF (uncompressed)
|
Yes
|
|
Submaster
|
< 3000 pixels / longest
dimension; color bar cropped out
|
Tiff (uncompressed)
|
No
|
|
Access
|
> 150 pixels / longest
dimension (recommended 640, 800 or 1024)
|
JPEG (compressed)
|
Optional (recommended No)
|
|
Thumbnail
|
= 150 pixels / longest
dimension
|
JPEG (compressed)
|
Optional (recommended No)
|
All digital imaging takes place at Gamma 2.2; master files
are in RGB color space (access / thumbnails may be in sRGB) at a bit depth of
24bit for color or 8 bit for b/w source materials.
The combined guideline of resolution / pixel dimension /
file size for master files ensures that captures from fairly large, fairly
small or oddly proportioned sources will yield an adequate amount of data. Some
examples might help clarify the need for the differentiated approach: A fairly
small object captured at 600 ppi yields a file which will be unsatisfactory for
most uses. If the original object is the size of a slide (1.5 x 1 inch), a 600
ppi capture standard results in a file of 900 x 600 pixels or 1.5 MB of data.
The same object captured at 3000 pixels per longest dimension will yield a file
of 3000 x 2000 pixels or 17 MB of data. Obviously, the second capture comes
much closer to fulfilling the promise of "one file, many uses" any master file
has to live up to, and it comes close enough to the file size guideline of 20
MB.
On the other hand, the capture of a fairly large object
illustrates a situation in which a ppi-based standard alone would demand a
capture exceeding hardware capability. If our original material is the size of
a handscroll (e.g. 12 x 60 inches), the 600 ppi standard would insist that we
capture a file of 7200 x 36000 pixels, or 740 MB in data. However, the same
object captured at our second specification of 3000 pixels per longest
dimension will only yield a file of 600 x 3000 pixels or 5 MB. In this case,
because of the odd proportions of the object, the appropriate target for
capture would be our 3rd guideline of approximating 20 MB per image
file, yielding about 100 ppi, or about 1200 x 6000 pixels in our example. The
20 MB figure derives from the file size of a 4x5 transparency scanned at
600ppi.
For an uncompressed image at 24bit color, the following
formulas may be used to determine filesize:
File Size (k)= (height inches x
width inches x ppi x ppi x bit depth) / 8192 or
File Size (k)= (pixel dimension x
pixel dimension x bit depth) / 8192
Further divide the results by 1024
for MB.
For institutions engaging in imaging exceeding the master
file specifications significantly, we also recommend saving a submaster file.
The submaster has no color bar; it has a smaller pixel dimension than the
master file (between 2000 and 3000 pixels / longest dimension). This file only
contains the salient visual content to be communicated, and it is smaller and
more portable than the master file. It may be used to (1) create new access /
thumbnail files through batch processing, (2) as the back-end file for a
dynamic imaging server or (3) as a source file for most mid-end print uses.
To ensure color accuracy, the project recommends color
adjustments with the help of color bars (such as a Kodak Q-13). The color bar
provides a target of known values which allows for color correction either
immediately after the capture, or at any later date. For more details on how to
use color bars in archiving digital image files, please consult Daniel L.
Johnston's article ("A Simplified Standard Method of Digital Image Tonal
Capture for Archival Projects"). In keeping with OAC/CDL recommendations, most
MOAC project partners chose this method for safeguarding color over automatic
color management software.
The RGB color values on a Kodak Q-13 at Gamma 2.2 should be
the following:
Patch
|
0
(A)
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7(M)
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16(B)
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
RGB
|
242
|
218
|
196
|
177
|
159
|
143
|
129
|
116
|
105
|
94
|
85
|
77
|
69
|
62
|
56
|
50
|
45
|
41
|
37
|
33
|
Choosing the A, M and B point as references points for
adjusting scanner settings and spot checking individual scans usually yields
satisfactory results. You may adjust your scanner by using a tonal curve (or
other color manipulation tools in your scanning software) on the scan of a
Kodak Q-13 target to approximate the RGB values in the tables. Using those
settings for subsequent scans, the colors should be within acceptable range of
the target values, and may be spot-checked after each scan e.g. with the Color
Sampler Tool in Photoshop. We recommend that the color bar be cropped out of
access and thumbnail files to maximize screen real estate for content.
Since many institutions already had pre-existing digital
images which may not have been captured in compliance with the project
specifications, MOAC decided to allow those legacy resources to be submitted.
These legacy image files will be re-captured by partner institutions according
to project specifications at a later date.
For institutions without a file server, the OAC has offered
to host digital image files by special arrangement; otherwise MOAC endorses a
de-centralized model in which each institution hosts their own images locally.
2.2 Digital Imaging Metadata
The following table summarizes the minimal technical
metadata MOAC project partners agreed to capture. All of the fields may be
extracted from tiff or jpeg fileheaders using programs with metadata harvester
capability such as iViewMediaPro or Canto Cumulus.
Elements required by MOAC are highlighted in grey.
|
File Type
|
image/tiff
|
|
File Dimensions
|
1024 x 1028 pixels
|
|
Sub-object Format
|
image/tiff, image/jpeg etc.
|
|
(Lossless) Compression
Format
|
LZW
|
|
Bit Depth
|
1, 8, 24, etc.
|
|
Color Space
|
CMYK, RGB, CIELab
|
|
Resolution
|
600 dpi; 400 dpi
interpolated to 600 dpi
|
|
File Date
|
1999-05-13
|
|
File Locator
|
urn:ucb:I0182A, http://purl.berkeley.edu/I0182A.jpg
|
The technical metadata captured lives as part of a digital
object submitted to the OAC. For more details on the fields and a discussion of
encoding the technical metadata accompanying each digital file please see
section 4. Digital Objects of this document. Note that in the CDL Digital
Object Standard, the fields listed above are dispersed among the Content File
Inventory, Structural Metadata and Administrative Metadata - Technical.
3. File Exchange Formats
Related Resources:
GŸnter Waibel. Granular Collections Access. An
Information Architecture Informed by Standards.
Proceeds from Electronic Imaging & The Visual Arts (EVA), 2001
[HTML]
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/guenter/EVA2001CollectionsAccess.html
3.1 Collection Guides: Encoded Archival Description (EAD)
OAC/CDL Standards:
OAC Best Practices Guidelines
Version 1.0: Encoding New Finding Aids Using Encoded Archival Description (August 23, 2001) [PDF]
http://www.cdlib.org/about/publications/oacbpg2001-08-23.pdf
MOAC Implementation / Adaptation
OAC Best Practices Guidelines
for Museum Collections Version 1.0: Encoding New Collection Guides Using
Encoded Archival Description (May 31, 2002)
[PDF]
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/moac/classic/mBPG.pdf
Related Resources:
Record Export for Access to Cultural Heritage (REACH) [HTML]
http://www.rlg.org/reach.elements.html
Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA) [HTML]
http://www.getty.edu/research/institute/standards/cdwa/
At the heart of MOAC's strategy for integrating museum
collections with library and archival holdings sits Encoded Archival
Description (EAD), the common information submission package of the OAC. The
standard has its origins in the archival community, and the OAC Best Practice
Guidelines (BPG) in effect at the outset of the MOAC project had to be adapted
in order to accommodate museum data. As a key outcome of the MOAC project, the
consortium established a complimentary mBPG (Museum Best Practice Guideline)
for encoding museum collections.
The most noticeable change between the two guidelines
occurred at the item level, where MOAC expands the archival BPG to accommodate
the project's agreed upon descriptive metadata set. Changes at the higher level
of description remain fairly minimal; e.g. the museums reserve the right to
repeat certain types of information (such as artist's names and credit lines)
at lower levels of the EAD hierarchy. MOAC partners are legally bound to
display this type of information whenever a digital image of an item displays.
According to archival practice, information always has to appear at its highest
appropriate level in the EAD, and may not be repeated.
Another instance of divergent implementation of the EAD:
Unlike archival collections, museums put less emphasis on the provenance of a
particular collection; similar to museum exhibitions, museum collections
organize around a theme or an artist rather than the common origin of
materials. The museum BPG produces a valid EAD XML file, and the
interoperability between files produced with either BPG remains uncompromised.
However, in its details museum mark-up may be at odds with some practices of
archival description as established by international standards such as ISAD(G).
MOAC uses EAD XML exclusively as a file exchange format for
purposes of data integration among cultural heritage communities, without any
implications of providing strict archival description. As a semantic
differentiation between archival and museum EAD, MOAC now refers to its EAD XML
as "Collection Guides" rather than "Finding Aids."
The museum implementation of the EAD makes extensive use of
the opportunities provided by the standard for aggregating and contextualizing
objects. At the highest level of description, Museum EAD collection guides
typically include a biography of an artist or the history of a movement as well
an overview detailing the scope of a collection. They break collections into
series, which in turn may contain essays about the particular group of objects
gathered under the category in question. At the item-level, contributors have
re-used label-copy from exhibitions to provide additional context for an
object.
To encode museum data about objects in the EAD, the REACH (Record Export for Art and Cultural Heritage) Element
Set was mapped to its appropriate EAD tags. The REACH Element set emerged out
of a project initiated by the Getty Information Institute and Research
Libraries Group. REACH created a set of 20 elements that are detailed enough to
describe an object for researchers, yet simple and generic enough that these
fields would be found in most institution's collection management systems.
REACH was informed by the more complex Categories for the Description of
Works of Art (CDWA) and the Museum
Educational Site Licensing Project (MESL)
element sets.
The table below
is based on Chapter G of the mBPG for Museum Collections and maps the 14 REACH
elements deemed relevant by MOAC to their respective EAD encoding tags.
The
following codes are used to indicate whether the element is required or not:
R This
EAD tag is required at
this level in all
collection guides.
M This
EAD tag is mandatory when the information is available
at this level in a collection guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Set the level
attribute on all item-level components used to "item".
- Use an id
attribute unique within the OAC environment on all item-level
components. This id will be used to link Digital Objects back to the
exact location of their description in the collection guide. Until the
OAC/CDL makes a programmatic decision on Permanent Object Identifiers
(POIs), the use of an institutional acronym and an Accession Number is
recommended.
- Example: <c02
id="bampfa_1996.49.1" level="item">
|
R
|
|
|
|
R
|
|
|
- For a simple
reference from an inline thumbnail to an access file, follow Example 1.
For a reference from an inline thumbnail to a METS object, follow
Example 2. For an example of an entity reference, see Example 3.
- Example 1:
<daogrp><daoloc entityref="bampfa_1994.31_1_2"
href=http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/ images/bampfa_1994.31_1_2.jpg
role="hi-res"></daoloc><daoloc
entityref="bampfa_1994.31_1_3" href="http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/images/bampfa_1994.31_1_3.jpg"
role="thumbnail"></daoloc></daogrp>
- Example 2:
<daogrp><daoloc entityref="bampfa_CC.212_1_2"
href="http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/xdlib/servlet/archobj?DOCCHOICE=moac/bampfa_CC.212_moa2.XML"
role="hi-res"></daoloc><daoloc
entityref="bampfa_CC.212_1_3"
href="http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/collections/bam/images/moa2/bampfa_CC.212_1_3.jpg"
role="thumbnail"></daoloc></daogrp>
- Example 3:
<!ENTITY bampfa_CC.212_1_3 SYSTEM "http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/
images/bampfa_CC.212_1_3.jpg" NDATA jpeg>
|
M
|
|
|
- Birth and death
dates and country of origin, if known, should go in this field. The ULAN
should be used here in conjunction with the NORMAL attribute.
- Example:
<origination><persname role="Creator" NORMAL="Van Gogh,
Vincent" source="ULAN"> Vincent Van Gogh, </persname>
1853-1890, Holland </origination>
|
R
|
|
Object Name / Title
|
Use
one <unittitle> for the name or title given to the object by the
creator/maker, curator, or owner. Descriptive titles or names based on
classification terms or object type may be included here, and must also be
included in the 'Type of Object' field (below).
- Example:
<unittitle>Portrait of DeVille</unittitle>
|
M
|
|
Date of
Creation / Date Range
|
Use one
<unitdate> with the type
attribute set to the appropriate value.
- To include a bulk
date, insert the element <unitdate type="bulk">
immediately after the first <unitdate>..
- Example:
<unittitle label="Title">Sarah Smith papers,
<unitdate type="inclusive">1930-1975</unitdate>
<unitdate type="bulk">(bulk 1955-1970)</unitdate></unittitle>
- If normalizing
<unitdate>s using the normal attribute, use ISO 8601 : 1988(E)
(available online at: <http://www.iso.ch/markete/8601.pdf>) for
determining the format for the attribute value. The following format is
recommended: YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM (using 4 digits for years and hyphens
between elements). For
example, December 12, 1904 would be normalized as "1904-12-12"
and April 1962 as "1962-04." Use a forward slash (/) to separate dates in a range,
and use the fullest form of the date at each end of the range. For example, normalize August
8-24, 1986 as 1986-08-08/1986-08-24 and November 1923-March 1924 as
1923-11/1924-03.
|
|
|
|
Use one
<physdesc> following the <unittitle> in the item-level
<coX>.
|
M
|
|
|
- Example: <genreform
source="aat">engravings</genreform>
|
M
|
|
|
- Time periods such
as "19th century" should be included in the Date element. Only
periods or movements with proper names should be included as
<physfacet>.
- Example:
<physfacet encodinganalog="cdwa styles-description" source="aat">Surrealist</physfacet>
|
M
|
|
|
- Example:
<physfacet encodinganalog="cdwa materials-description"
source="aat">oil paintings</physfacet>
|
M
|
|
|
- This tag may be
especially useful for archaelogical artifacts, while its use for art
objects with know creator information is limited.
- Example:
<geogname encodinganalog="cdwa creation-place"
source="tgn"> IbŽrica, Pen’nsula </geogname>
|
M
|
|
|
- Example:
<dimensions>w22 x h37 x d17 cm</dimensions>
|
M
|
|
|
- Example:
<repository>Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film
Archive</repository>
|
R
|
|
|
- Preferred use:
This field is for the object's accession number or ID number or current
inventory number or any unique identifying number as assigned by the
current repository.
Inventory numbers or other identifiers that may have been
assigned to the object by former owners should be reported in the Notes
field.
- Example:
<unitid>1958.5.59</unitid>
|
M
|
|
|
- Preferred Use:
Enter the name of a person, institution, or organization which formerly
owned the object (as for example in a credit line), or include current
owner's name, especially if different from current repository.
- Example:
<admininfo><custodhist>Gift of Mr. and Mrs. J. Farnsworth
</custodhist></admininfo>
|
M
|
|
|
- Use one
<head> with an appropriate heading for the type of content
encoded. Multiple <odd> entries are distinguished by their
different heads.
- Types of notes
may include, but are not restricted to, description/content,
inscriptions/marks, state/edition, transcription, history, condition,
reference/bibliography, language, exhibition history.
- Example:
<odd><head>Description</head><p>This work epitomizes
the ephemeral and spare quality of Cornell's late shadow-boxes and has
been linked in influence to minimalism as much as to other art in this
particular medium such as the work of Bruce Conner. This work is loosely
based on a story of a 19th century Russian
ballerina.....</p></odd><odd><head>Condition</head><p>This
work has loose nail joints and fragile
pigmentation...</p></odd>
|
|
|
|
- Example:
<subject source="lcsh">California, Northern;
</subject><subject
source="lctgm">Events</subject><subject
source="lctgm">Fires</subject><subject
source="lctgm">Rivers</subject><subject
source="lcsh">Sacramento
(Calif.)</subject><subject source="lctgm">Settlements</subject></p>
|
|
3.2 Digital Objects
3.2.1 Making of America 2 (MOA2)
OAC/CDL Standards:
CDL Digital Object Standard:
Metadata, Content and Encoding (May 18,
2001) [PDF]
http://www.cdlib.org/about/publications/CDLObjectStd-2001.pdf
Related Resources:
The Making of America II Testbed
Project White Paper Version 2.0 (September 15, 1998) [PDF]
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/moa2/wp-v2.pdf
The digital object standard Making of America 2 (MOA2)
adopted by MOAC serves three broad purposes. First, it allows project members
to transfer digital objects to the central repository of the OAC. Second, it
provides the means to display all the image files for one record as navigable
clusters. In this way, the digital object standard extends the collection guide
standard by adding sophisticated display for items represented by more than one
image surrogate. Third, the digital object standard ensures the longevity of
the digital files created in the project by outlining specifications for
minimal technical metadata. In this function, the digital object standard
augments the production specifications for digital images.
The UC Berkeley libraries developed MOA2 during a project of
the same name as an XML document type definition (dtd), and the CDL
subsequently adopted the mark-up as its digital object standard. MOAC reviewed
the standard and, with a few exceptions, implemented the minimal set required
by the CDL. The following tables and texts have been adapted from Appendix
C: Metadata for Digital Objects of the CDL
Digital Object Standard. For more details
on the encoding of the fields in MOA2 XML, please refer to the original CDL
document.
The Columns of the table are:
1. Feature: a descriptive name of the
metadata element
2. Example: examples of this element's
content
3. Description/Comments: a definition of this metadata
element
Elements required by MOAC are highlighted in grey.
(1) Metadata for the entirety of the Digital Object
|
Feature
|
Example
|
Description/Comments
|
|
Unique identifier
reference
|
urn:ucb:I0182A, 10.1000/I0182A, http://purl.berkeley.edu/I0182A
|
This element uniquely identifies a particular
digital object
|
|
Label
|
Patrick Breen diary : ms.,
1846 Nov. 20‑1847 Mar. 1.
|
Name or title for object,
not necessarily unique, for display to user.
|
|
Genre
|
diary, ledger, photoalbum,
stereograph, etc.
|
Class of work of which this
digital object is an instance. Analogous to a MARC 655 field.
|
|
Descriptive Metadata
Reference
|
http://sunsite2.berkeley.edu:28008/dynaweb/oac/calher/breen/
|
An identifier or location
for descriptive metadata regarding this object.
|
|
Descriptive Metadata Type
|
MARC, EAD, RDF, PICS, OTHER
|
The form of descriptive
metadata associated with this object.
|
(2)
Content File Inventory
The content file inventory of a digital object contains a
listing of all of the files containing digital content derived from the primary
source. The metadata elements within the content file inventory contain the
most basic information needed to identify, retrieve, and display the content
files.
|
Feature
|
Example
|
Description/Comments
|
|
Version
|
|
A digital library
object may encapsulate several different electronic expressions of the
original work which has been digitized in different formats. A version within
a digital library object consists of all files necessary to process and
display a particular expression to a user (e.g., an SGML transcription + DTD
+DSSSL style sheet). Files within a single, root <FileGrp> element
constitute a digitized version of the object.
|
|
File ID
|
<File ID="I0182A">
|
A unique identifier, internal to the object, for
referencing this particular File from the Structural Map.
|
|
File Type
|
text/xml, text/XML, image/tiff, etc.
|
Used to inform client software regarding the file's
data format, and hence what general viewer type will be needed.
|
|
File Sequence
|
23rd of 42 page images
|
Relative position of a particular file within its
encapsulating subset of files.
|
|
File Date
|
1999-05-13
|
The date the file was
created expressed as ISO Date Format YYYY-MM-DD
|
|
Administrative Metadata Reference
|
<File ADMID="A125 A137">
|
This attribute carries information necessary to
locate all administrative metadata relevant to this file. In the digital library
object, this consists of an IDREF attribute referring to a particular tagged
section within the Administrative Metadata portion of the digital library
document.
|
|
File Use
|
ARCHIVE, REFERENCE, THUMBNAIL
|
Used to describe generic instances of an image.
|
|
File Dimensions
|
1024 x 1028 pixels
|
Dimension information
such as the resolution offered by the object (i.e., not the captured
resolution) may be provided. This element documents the forms of the image
object that can be requested from the repository (i.e., in order to assist an
intermediary in navigation, manipulation, etc.). For images of all types
(i.e., bitonal and continuous tone), this is resolution and pixel dimensions.
The element is not applicable for text.
|
|
File Locator
|
urn:ucb:I0182A, http://purl.berkeley.edu/I0182A.jpg
|
A unique identifier or locator which may be used by
client software to retrieve the file in question.
|
(3)
Structural Metadata Table
Structural metadata records the structure of the work from
which the digital object is derived. The hierarchy created by structural metadata
is crucial for display and navigation of a digital object.
|
Feature
|
Example
|
Description/Comments
|
|
Structural Type
|
Logical, physical, etc.
|
Structural type is used to
indicate whether the internal structure of the object is best described as a
logical structure (e.g., this is a diary consisting of entries) or a physical
structure (e.g., this is a book consisting of pages).
|
|
Structural
Divisions/Sub-object Relationships
|
Parent div of diary, with
two child divs of type entry, which are siblings:
<div TYPE='diary'>
<div TYPE='entry'>
</div>
<div TYPE='entry'>
</div>
</div>
|
A digital object may be
logically divided into parts (e.g., letters in a diary). If resources are
made available to support some level of encoding, structural divisions are
encoded with the TEI element DIV.
Many of the attributes of the Digital Object will be applicable to the
Structural Divisions.
DIVs provide information on
sub-object relationships. A diary entry in a diary section (e.g., a year)
would have as its parent the section, and would have as siblings the previous
and next diary entries. If, for example, it was an unusually long diary entry
with sections of its own, its "children" would be the sections within the
entry.
|
|
Sub-object Type
|
Table of contents, entry,
illustration, etc.
|
Similar to the genre for an
object, sub-object type specifies a class of material of which this
sub-object is a particular instance, such as entries in a diary, pages in a
photoalbum, etc.
|
|
Sub-object sequence
|
1 - N
|
Pages require a sequence
indicator (e.g., this is the third page in the sequence of pages contained in
this book).
|
|
Sub-object Label
|
Page 3, "Fit the Second -
The Bellman's Speech"
|
Name or title for the
sub-object, not necessarily unique, for display to user.
|
|
Sub-object Format
|
text/xml, text/XML,
image/tiff, etc.
|
|