Adam, Rosemary,
                Don't know what you thought of this mornings ideas, but I will continue
anyway...

Section 3&5: <qcl> -or- <activity>

The discussion at Stoke seemed to be more along the lines of what Rosemary
was saying about the use of <qcl> and <activity> so that we would get a
structure like:

<qcl> </qcl>    # overarching qualification (see section 2)
<activity>                              # equating to full programme of study
        <activity>                      # equating to year 1
                <activity> </activity>  # module 1
                <activity> </activity>  # module 2
                <activity> </activity>  # module 3
                <activity> </activity>  # module 4
        </activity>
        <activity>                      # equating to year 2
                <activity> </activity>  # module 1
                <activity> </activity>  # module 2
                <activity> </activity>  # module 3
                <activity> </activity>  # module 4
        </activity>
        <activity>                      # equating to year 3
                <activity> </activity>  # module 1
                <activity> </activity>  # module 2
                        <activity> </activity>  # component of module 2
                        <activity> </activity>  # component of module 2
                <activity> </activity>  # module 3
                <activity> </activity>  # module 4
        </activity>
</activity>

This allows us to nest the years of study and their component modules in a
logical structure which as well as coping with the data, also manages to be
quite human-readable. Once this becomes the holder for the PDP as well as
the transcript, there can be another nested layer of <activity> which
relates to work carried out in attaining a module pass (see year 3, module
2 above). The use of the outermost layer of <activity> corresponding to the
degree programme allows us to store information about overall credits/marks
received (see Adam's Section 5 query).

In relation to Adam's other point from Section 5, that was down to my
misunderstanding as to the nature of the <level> element of <qcl>. I had
thought that it related to the level of the qualification in the UK
Qualification Structure (i.e. HE3 corresponds to a BA(Hons) degree). We
decided in Stoke that Adam's proposal was, of course, the correct way to do it:

<qcl>...
        <level>
                <text>2</text>
                <level>
                        <text>1</text>
                </level>
        </level>
...</qcl>

Section 7: Explanatory text etc.

I would agree with both of you that this is not a part of the transcript as
we tend to think of it, but it does have to be stored somewhere. This is
part of a larger concern I have over the relationship between transcripts
PDPs and Degree Programme Specifications. To use an example, I took an MSc
in IT and Learning with Lancaster University, from which I graduated in
1999. In 2000 the degree programme structure changed but the qualification
remained the same. So if we are to know what someone has done in their
degree we will need to have a transcript, linked to a PDP, linked to an
archive copy of their degree programme specification, linked to and archive
copy of their subject benchmark, linked to a description of the structure
of UK qualifications. Now I will concede that this is overkill for most
people, but anything else does not tell the whole story...

OK so that is my rant over with for the day. Please let me know your
thoughts as I will be modifying the consultation document for Peter to
discuss further with Bill Olivier next week.
Regards,
        Paul
  _______________________________________________________________
| Paul Drummond, Deputy Director            The Medical School  |
| Faculty of Medicine Computing Centre      Framlington Place   |
| Tel: 0191 2436137  Fax: 2225016           Newcastle upon Tyne |
|                                           NE2 4HH             |
|_ http://numedsun.ncl.ac.uk/ __________________________________|