Hi Sarah
I wonder if the questions you ask arise from MD serving two different
but related roles/purposes:
1. The Publisher's description of their LO (e.g. the publisher's front
page of a book (is there a name for this?))
2. Independent Librarians/Catalogers' classification of a LO (e.g. a
catalogue card)
Not surprisingly, I think you are wearing the second hat.
I would think that LO publishers should use General 1.5:Keyword when
they want to add whatever terms they think relevant, especially if they
are not familiar with available taxonomies.
My understanding (but its a long time since I looked at it!) is that the
classification section's 9.4:Keywords should only contain the relevant
terms from the vocabulary/taxonomy specified in the 9.2:Taxonpath.
So if you have a known vocabulary use the 9:Classification section, if
not use 1.5:Keyword (a place for non-librarians/ taxonomists to play :-) .
My understanding is (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that you are
permitted to have multiple instances of 9:Classification and therefore
this is the place to use multiple taxonomies when needed. e.g. in the
context of Grainne's development of three taxonomies for Learning
Activities (Context, Pedagogical Approach, Task), each could have a
separate classification element as part of a profile using LOM for
Learning Activities (which will doubtless cause all sorts of debate
about whether a learning activity can be a learning object...)
Bill
Sarah Currier wrote:
> Hi Scott
>
> Thanks for teasing this out a bit more for us non-techies! This does
> look useful.
>
> Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>> If something is being used as a keyword rather than a classification,
>> I would suggest the source of the keyword isn't that critical,
>
>
> I need to think about this. You may well be right... interesting.
> Might consult some of my Info Science colleagues across the road.
>
> Ahh, the CETIS Metadata SIG. It's so kewl isn't it, getting answers,
> having assumptions challenged, etc. etc.?
>
> Sarah
>
|