CSIP METS profile some requirements refer to incorrect examples

[Sunday-Crunk]

CSIP4 recommends the presence of the csip:CONTENTINFORMATIONTYPE attribute with a "should" cardinality, but of the given examples: metsRootElementExample1 metsRootElementExample2, only the second actually contains the other attribute. This could be a convenient way to demonstrate the severity of the requirement in practice and that it is not a failure criteria, but this was not used consistently with other "should" requirements, most other "SHOULD" requirements only feature examples that test positively. As such it's a little confusing. CSIP63 has the same issue as CSIP4, with two examples only one of which contains the relevant data.

CSIP20 and CSIP34 both have one supplied example, dmdSecExample1 and amdSecExample1, which both do not contain the tested attribute @STATUS at all.

CSIPs 45-56 all depend on the presence of a rightsMD element described in CSIP45 with a "MAY" severity. The subsequent dependent requirements through CSIP56 (which vary in severity and includes "MUSTS") including 45 all list amdSecExample1 as their example, but amdSecExample1 does not contain any rightsMD element.

I am submitting this as an issue since it seems to be a problem of clarity rather than the technical construction of the examples, if we can gather a more robust understanding of what the examples are designed to achieve in the case of non-must requirements I can implement it in the profile. This may be critical if @carlwilson needs the examples to validate in a predictable way to extract cardinality from the encoded tests without external document fragments

[karinbredenberg]

The examples are just a snippet showing the code.

I suggest @Sunday-Crunk and I meet and go through this together and update the example references.

[jmaferreira]

DILCIS meeting decision: @karinbredenberg @Sunday-Crunk Will work on this topic and will present the result to the group.