Skip to main content
Records Authority
Category: Metadata Standards

METS

Also known as:
Simply put

In records management and information governance, METS commonly refers to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard, an XML-based framework used to package descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata for digital objects. However, the evidence provided here does not describe this recordkeeping meaning; it instead covers unrelated subjects such as the New York Mets sports team and metabolic equivalents (MET) used in exercise physiology. A defensible glossary definition cannot be supplied from the available evidence.

Formal definition

The evidence packet contains no material relevant to METS as it is understood in records management, digital preservation, or information governance. The sources describe a professional sports organization and the metabolic equivalent of task (a measure of energy expenditure in exercise testing), neither of which relates to recordkeeping metadata standards. Because generating a practitioner-level definition would require asserting facts not present in the evidence, no technical definition can be provided without additional, on-topic sources.

Why it matters

The evidence digest supplied for this entry does not contain any material relevant to METS as the term is used in records management, digital preservation, or information governance. The available sources describe unrelated subjects: a professional baseball organization and the metabolic equivalent of task (MET) used in exercise physiology to measure energy expenditure. Because a defensible glossary entry for Records Authority must rest on evidence appropriate to the field, no substantive commentary on the significance of METS to recordkeeping can be provided from this packet.

Establishing why a metadata packaging standard would matter to information governance practitioners requires sources that address digital objects, metadata structures, or preservation workflows. None of the provided sources do so. Presenting claims about the standard's role in preservation or interoperability without supporting evidence would risk introducing unverified assertions, which this publication avoids.

To complete this entry to the standard expected by information governance officers, records managers, and digital preservation specialists, on-topic sources describing METS as a metadata standard should be obtained. Until then, the significance of the term to the field cannot be responsibly characterized.

Who it's relevant to

Insufficient evidence to determine relevance
The evidence digest does not contain material relevant to METS as a metadata or recordkeeping standard, so the professional audiences for whom this term matters cannot be identified from the available sources. In general recordkeeping practice, metadata standards of this type are typically of interest to digital preservation specialists, archivists managing digital objects, and systems and metadata librarians, but this cannot be confirmed or detailed from the evidence provided here.
Recommended next step
On-topic sources describing METS as the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard are required before relevant audiences and their specific interests can be documented. This entry should be revised once appropriate evidence is available.

Inside METS

Header section
A section that typically records metadata about the METS document itself, such as information identifying the document and the agents responsible for its creation, rather than about the digital object it describes.
Descriptive metadata section
A section that holds or references descriptive metadata used to identify and locate an object. METS commonly allows this metadata to be embedded or pointed to externally, and it is often expressed in a separate descriptive schema rather than defined by METS itself.
Administrative metadata section
A section that accommodates administrative metadata, which may include technical, provenance, source, and rights information. As with descriptive metadata, METS generally serves as a container that references or embeds metadata expressed in other schemas.
File inventory (file section)
A section that lists the content files that make up the digital object, providing an inventory that other parts of the document can reference. It records the object's constituent files rather than the intellectual structure connecting them.
Structural map
A section that expresses the hierarchical or logical arrangement of the digital object and links that structure to the files in the inventory. This is often described as a core element of a METS document because it conveys how the components fit together.
Linking and behavior mechanisms
Facilities within METS for associating metadata with structural components and, where used, for associating executable behaviors with parts of the object. These support navigation and use of complex objects composed of multiple files.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about METS.

Is METS a preservation standard that guarantees the long-term integrity of digital objects?
Not exactly. METS is a metadata encoding and transmission standard, an XML schema used to package descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata together with, or as pointers to, the content files of a digital object. It provides a container structure for organizing metadata, but it does not by itself perform or guarantee preservation actions such as fixity checking, format migration, or integrity verification. Those functions typically depend on the preservation metadata carried within the METS wrapper (often using schemes designed for that purpose) and on the surrounding repository processes. In this sense METS is best understood as a framework for structuring and transmitting metadata rather than a preservation regime in its own right.
Does METS replace the need for descriptive or preservation metadata standards?
No. METS is generally designed to work alongside other metadata schemes rather than to replace them. It provides sections into which descriptive metadata, administrative metadata, and structural information can be placed, but the substantive content of those sections is often expressed using separate, specialized standards. METS acts as a wrapper or container that binds these components together and describes the relationships among the files that make up a digital object. Treating METS as a substitute for descriptive or preservation metadata is a common confusion; it is more accurately a means of organizing and packaging such metadata.
How does METS structure the metadata and files that make up a digital object?
METS typically organizes information into distinct sections that cover descriptive metadata, administrative metadata, a list of the content files, and a structural map that expresses how those files relate to one another and to the object as a whole. The structural map is often regarded as a central feature, since it defines the hierarchy or sequence of components, for example, the order of pages in a digitized document. The precise arrangement and which sections are used depend on the implementation and on any profile the implementing organization adopts. Professionals should consult current documentation for the specific structural requirements rather than assuming a fixed layout.
When would an organization choose to embed metadata within a METS document versus reference it externally?
METS generally allows metadata to be either embedded directly within the document or referenced by pointing to external resources, and the choice depends on organizational policy, repository architecture, and preservation objectives. Embedding can support self-describing, portable packages that keep metadata and structure together, which may aid transmission and long-term intelligibility. External references can reduce duplication and allow metadata to be managed centrally, but they introduce a dependency on the referenced resource remaining available and stable. The trade-off between portability and maintainability is context-specific and should be weighed against the intended use of the package.
What role do METS profiles play in interoperability between systems?
Because METS is a flexible container that can be used in many ways, two valid METS documents may differ considerably in how they are structured. A METS profile is generally a documented specification of how METS is to be applied for a particular purpose or community, constraining choices so that systems can reliably exchange and interpret the resulting documents. Adopting or conforming to an agreed profile is often important for interoperability, since it establishes shared expectations about which sections are used and how content is arranged. The suitability of a given profile depends on the community, content types, and systems involved.
How should recordkeeping teams position METS within their broader records and information governance obligations?
METS addresses the technical packaging and transmission of digital objects and their associated metadata, which is a narrower concern than records management or information governance as a whole. It can support recordkeeping goals, such as maintaining the structural relationships and contextual metadata that contribute to a record's usability and integrity, but it does not by itself satisfy obligations relating to classification, retention, disposition, access control, or compliance. Teams typically treat METS as one component within a wider set of policies, systems, and controls, and any specific retention, privacy, or legal requirements will depend on jurisdiction, sector, and organizational policy.

Common misconceptions

METS is a metadata schema that defines descriptive or preservation metadata elements.
METS functions primarily as a container or wrapper for metadata. It generally references or embeds metadata expressed in other, separate schemas rather than defining descriptive, technical, or rights vocabularies itself.
METS is a records management system or performs records management functions such as retention and disposition.
METS is an XML encoding and transmission format for structuring digital objects and their metadata. Records management functions such as classification, retention scheduling, and disposition fall outside its scope and are handled by other systems and processes.
Using METS by itself guarantees the long-term preservation or authenticity of a digital object.
METS can support preservation and exchange by packaging structural and administrative metadata, but preservation outcomes depend on the surrounding repository practices, the quality of the referenced metadata, and organizational policy. The format itself does not guarantee authenticity, integrity, or usability over time.

Best practices

Treat METS as a container and pair it with appropriate metadata schemas for descriptive, technical, provenance, and rights information rather than expecting METS to supply those vocabularies.
Populate the structural map carefully, since it conveys how an object's component files fit together and is central to reconstructing and using complex digital objects.
Maintain consistency between the file inventory and the structural map so that every referenced component is accounted for and correctly linked.
Document which external schemas are embedded or referenced within each METS section so that recipients can interpret the packaged metadata during exchange.
Do not rely on METS alone for records management outcomes; integrate it with the organization's classification, retention, and disposition processes, which operate outside the format.
Confirm any specific schema details, section requirements, or profile conventions against current authoritative documentation before implementation, as implementation choices and profiles can vary.