Date:         Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:16:02 -0400
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Jon Stroop <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Princeton University
Subject:      Re: Pointing to files with different access conditions from a
              record
Comments: To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Jorgen,
Are you using mods:location/mods:url to point to resources themselves, 
or to point to statements about access conditions regarding the resource 
being described?  I had the impression that it was something like the 
latter -- if it wasn't I'm sorry and please disregard my last post as it 
would be a horrible way to achieve the former.  If you are looking for a 
way to associate different rights metadata with different resources that 
share a descriptive record, though it does make things a little more 
complex, a METS records would be a much easier way to accomplish this.  
In METS, each mets:file in the mets:filesec can reference a separate 
rights metadata statement in in the mets:amdSec.  This would probably be 
the cleanest approach as well, as it keeps your descriptive and rights 
metadata concerns separate.
-Jon

Riley, Jenn wrote:
> Hi Jorgen,
>
> Do the two files represent different versions of the *same* content, or
> are they different subordinate parts of the resource being described? 
>
> If the latter, you could use <relatedItem type="constituent">, one for
> each file, and include location/url and accessCondition for each under
> relatedItem. If the former, it's more tricky, but you might think about
> making one the "primary" version described by the record (whether that's
> the restricted or the open one would depend on what you're using the
> record for), and putting the other location/url and accessCondition
> under a <relatedItem type="otherFormat">. I'm not sure I love that
> solution, but it could be functional.
>
> On a related note, if you're going to be sharing these records with
> others, you might consider changing the yes/no value you show in your
> example into something more human-readable. For a shared record, this:
>
> Access Condition: yes
>
> is confusing. I know you've got the type attribute on there, which helps
> to clarify what "yes" means, but I suspect a yes/no value could still be
> very easily misunderstood by a metadata aggregator or end-user of such
> an aggregation. Predictable yes/no values for an element like this are
> easy to process locally, but you might think about sharing a different
> version of the record to make the same meaning clearer in an aggregated
> environment.
>
> Jenn
>
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com 
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jorgen Eriksson
>> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:49 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [MODS] Pointing to files with different access 
>> conditions from a record
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I,m rather new to MODS and looking for a solution to the 
>> following. I want to be able to point to multiple files with 
>> different access conditions in a record. 
>> By repeating location for each file belonging to a record and 
>> making access restrictions an attribute to location I could 
>> manage multiple files with different access conditions. See example. 
>>
>> <location>
>> <url>file1</url>
>> 	<accessCondition type="restrictionOnAccess">no</accessCondition>
>> </location>
>> <location>
>> 	<url>file2</url>
>> 	<lu:accessCondition type="restrictionOnAccess">yes 
>> </accessCondition>
>> 	</location>
>> And so on.
>>
>> AccessCondition is not a recognized attribute to location in 
>> MODS but would it be possible to do it like this anyway. Or 
>> is there any other way to handle this?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jorgen Eriksson
>> Lund University Libraries
>>
>>