Once we have introduced the key features of METS, we will look at a potential IMSCP encoding of this same object. What might this object look like if we wanted to absorb it into an e-learning content package so that it could become e-learning course material? This IMS-CP encoding will introduce the key elements and features of the IMS-CP standard.
The simple METS and IMSCP documents thus introduced and representing the same digital content will provide the departure point for a more in depth analysis of the similarities and differences of the two standards. This analysis will describe the high level similarities between the two standards as demonstrated by the sample encodings; but will then go on beyond the simple examples to explore how the standards diverge, particularly as they are likely to be applied by the research library (METS) and e-learning communities (IMSCP). This analysis will look at both structural and conceptual differences between the two standards as applied.
Finally, we will propose a xslt crosswalk intended to serve as a preliminary tool for incorporating library METS objects into learning packages. (MetsToImsCrossWalk)
Readers should note that METS and IMSCP are both fairly flexible standards, and this paper doesn't attempt to deal with all possibilities either for a METS encoding or and IMS-CP encoding. On the METS side we start with encoding options a research library is likely to use when representing digital versions of their primary source materials in METS. However, there is no standard "library" METS encoding or profile, at least at this point, and even within this relatively small community, practices are likely to vary fairly widely. Nor is there a standard encoding for learning packages, although various groups are exploring more narrowly defined profiles and implementations of IMSCP. When and if profiles emerge that narrow the range of METS and IMSCP options and practices for certain applications, we would expect it to be possible to write profile specific transformations between METS and IMSCP objects that have fewer ambiguities. In the meantime, this paper does not attempt to suggest a definitive encoding for library METS objects nor for IMSCP objects. And at best it can suggest a preliminary, provisional and highly contingent means for absorbing library METS objects into IMSCP packages.
The assumption that METS and IMSCP are not competing standards underlies this article, and our purpose is not to appraise their relative merits. Rather, we assume that they are standards that attempt to meet the needs of different communities. Our main purpose is to surface the concepts and begin to establish a vocabulary that can facilitate communication and collaboration between the e-learning and library communities, which after all, share many common goals.
