Is it possible to have md directly under mdSec / file optionally directly under fileSec? We don't want to remove grouping entirely, and anything for mdSec should be parallel with fileSec. If possible, we should avoid mixing md/mdGrp under mdSec and likewise for file/fileGrp/fileSec.
There are certainly cases where it might be unnecessary to have fileGrp and mdGrp. Processing software might be more complicated if the group structure is optional, and especially if mixing is allowed.
Making mdGrp optional could be useful if it helps avoid multiple IDREFs and the need to tokenize IDREFs.
We will draft something for making the nesting optional, and make sure it is possible to prohibit mixing mdGrp and md at the same level, and fileGrp / file at the same level.
aelkiss
commented
3 years ago
See https://github.com/mets/METS-board/wiki/2021-06-03-Board-Meeting-Notes#mdgrp--filegrp
Is it possible to have md directly under mdSec / file optionally directly under fileSec? We don't want to remove grouping entirely, and anything for mdSec should be parallel with fileSec. If possible, we should avoid mixing md/mdGrp under mdSec and likewise for file/fileGrp/fileSec.
There are certainly cases where it might be unnecessary to have fileGrp and mdGrp. Processing software might be more complicated if the group structure is optional, and especially if mixing is allowed.
Making mdGrp optional could be useful if it helps avoid multiple IDREFs and the need to tokenize IDREFs.
We will draft something for making the nesting optional, and make sure it is possible to prohibit mixing mdGrp and md at the same level, and fileGrp / file at the same level.