Open PhillipTommerholt opened 5 years ago
My personal opinion is "no". Even more, I would take out everything about EAD from the main body of the DIP specification and move it into a kind of "EAD Metadata Type Sub-Specification".
Would be interesting to hear further opinions from @karinbredenberg and others!
My original question was "Should access metadata really be stored in EAD?" but I rephrased it. I like the idea of moving it into a separate specification.
In my opinion no description of an EAD profile (or use of EAD) in something else than an CS Archival Description. I see some issues with the use of the odd element. I would do as Kuldar suggest and remove the EAD texts and that will have to be its own specification or specifications. The access metadata that should go with the object out should be in my opinion in a PREMIS rights part.
Or use METSRightsMD as we suggest in the CS IP.
In general we have a problem finding an access rigths metadata standard, a Rights Expression Language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_Expression_Language) that is suitable for archives.
We need things like setting dates for access (from - and sometimes to), restrictions for different types of users (archivists, producers, researchers), depth (metadata only, or also data - to a certain level.)
In reality we more or less have to cover the access legislation for 27 EU member states.
So far we have EAD, PREMIS and Mets, none cover all needs, and they compete on other needs.
We may simply have to wait to after the hearing to decide how to handle access rigths.
Should access metadata be stored in EAD? DIP access restristions