Closed prettybits closed 3 months ago
Yes, the ID needs to be unique within the ID's in the METS document. I'll look into the wording.
The suggestion is:
Board members acknowledgment of the issue: Tick the box in front of you name to indicate that you have looked at the suggestion.
Voting (Decision making will be carried out on the basis of majority voting by all eligible members of the Board. In the case of a tied vote, decisions will be made at the discretion of the Chair)
Tick the box in front of you name to say yes to the suggestion.
7 DILCIS Board members have acknowledge the issue 7 DILCIS Board members agree with the solution
The PR will be part of the next release of the specifications
It is somewhat unclear to me what the intended uniqueness scope of XML identifiers is meant to be. Judging from issue #63 in the test corpus and the description of the test case for CSIP106 I get the impression this is only about the general rules for XML identifiers and thus only need to be unique within an XML document?
All the rules about identifiers say this in their description:
Which may be the reason why I'm currently getting validation errors in
commons-ip
due to conflicting identifiers across package and representation METS documents (for requirement CSIP106 in the concrete case) as this could be read to apply to the package as a whole and not just within the package METS OR within the representation METS. If this is not meant to apply across documents maybe the wording could be adjusted?I haven't opened an issue in the
commons-ip
repo yet while I'm unsure what interpretation is really correct.