On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Liddy Nevile wrote:
> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:32:21 +1100
> From: Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Andrew McNaughton <[log in to unmask]>,
Stuart Sutton <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: "DC-Education (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Use of Comments v DC.Pedagogy, etc.
>
> this posting is confusing to me - does it suggest something has not been
> thought through sufficiently or not documented sufficiently with respect to
> the DC-ed stuff or is it about what we should call 'common but local'
> qualifiers - btw, do we talk about them in our draft report?
>
I don't think it directly implies much of anything about the DC-ed schema.
In order to make sure that we are directing our efforts towards tools for
discovering the things that the users actually want to discover, I've been
looking through logs of what sort of words people have been putting into
our free-text, unstructured search engine on the TKI site. Stuart
referred to a similar analysis done on a larger scale based on AskERIC
searches, so I asked him for more info on that research.
Indirectly there are implications for dc-ed.
See http://www.geminfo.org/Genesis/1996/research/page14.html
My impression is that this result tallies reasonably well with what we see
at TKI.
I rather suspect that the biggest gains we might hope for in
interoperability of our respective collections might come from agreement
on at least partially shared vocabularies for the dc.subject element, and
establishing a rough translation table between the level/grade numbers in
use between different countries. This will allow the translation of the
highest value parts of the collections, if not the bulk of the encoded
data.
Andrew McNaughton
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|