Firstly, one health warning, I only have v0.4 of the LIP spec, it would
appear that here are a number of components that are used here and that
are not in my version. I will try to upgrade later on today. hopefully
the gubbins below is still valid.

------------------------------------------------

I have now had a chance to study Pauls Mapping document - I must
apologise for doing this 'after the event' but I hadn't seen the
document before the Stoke meeting as I had not been in the office for a
week or so - this is the reason I didn't say much!

I apologise if I am covering ground that we passed in Stoke but I
thought I'd put down all my thoughts anyway.

Section 1
---------

        Inst ref number
        HESA ref number

To get around the problem of TWO 'unique' GIDs, why not use

        <affiliation><affiliationID>

for the Inst reference number? It seems distinctly poss that TWO (or
more) people from different institutions may have the same Inst Ref
Number and this would side step that issue nicely. As a side note,
Liverpool Hope students (who get Liv Uni degrees) have TWO inst ref
numbers (one for Hope and one for Liv Uni) - using the affiliation data
structure would allow both 'ID's to appear on the transcript (if
desired).


Section 2
---------

        Name of Inst delivering the programme

Similar to above, represent this as

        <affiliation><organisation>

Again in the case of Hope - they do not award the qualification, Liv Uni
do, however, the student must be regarded as being a member of Hope and
NOT Liverpool Uni.


Section 3
---------

Can somebody remind me why the

        Name of programme

is an <activity> and NOT a <qcl>. It seems more intuitive that as a
person either passes  or fails a year, it must be a form of
qualification, after all the 'year of study' does not have a score or
level associated with it on the transcript, it does have

        <qcl><level>

and one or more (start and finish)

        <qcl><date>

plus a

        <qcl><typename>

for the "name of the year".

I would see the overall structure of a (say) 3 years 'standard' degree
as being:

    [DEGREE]      [YEAR]   [MODULE]  [ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES]
                                      /- act
        qcl -+-----  qcl -+---- act -+-- act
             |            |           \- act
             |            +---- act ....
             |            :
             |            :
             +-----  qcl
             |
             |
             |
             |
             +-----  qcl

The <relationship> structure can be used to link module to years, and
years to degree. The nested <activities> structure can be used to indicate
'sub-tasks' of a particular module (say field trips or assessed assignments
and so on). Modules that follow on from other modules could also be
linked using the relationship structure.

Admittedly this does not fit into LUSID's way of thinking as we dont
allow a qualifiction to have a 'parent' - I shall speak to Janet about
this and have a think.


Section 4
---------

Accredited Key Skills - I misunderstood what was asked of me at Stoke
and gave a bit of a duff answer. I will have a discussion with Janet
about this one too and draft a separate reply.


Section 5
---------

        Overall Credits Received
        Overall mark / grade

It says in my notes 'definitely NOT a QCL', however, I have no idea why
not - it would seems sensible to me to that both these should be

        <qcl><extensions>

as they are clearly associated with the 'Name of Qualification' from
Section 1

I would also favour using

        <qcl><level<sublevel>

for the Overall Classification - again, this is strongly related to the
'Name of Qualification' from Section 1.

Section 7
---------

As I think I intonated at Stoke, I didn't see

        Overview of NQF

and

        Overview of UK HE system

as being extensions to the transcript, I wanted to use my favourite
<affiliation> structure again. A student is associated with both the
National Qualification Framework AND the UK HE system. Could we perhaps
use

        <affiliation><role><extension>

for both overviews? I would expect both overviews to be IDENTICAL for
every single student in the UK HE system who get 'standard' degress.

I would expect that there would be an Ensterprise specification for both
the NQF and the UK HE system where the text would actually come from.


Go on then, tell me how wrong I am!

Adam

--
   Dr AC Marshall ([log in to unmask])
   LUSID System Programmer, CCAP, University of Liverpool.

   Cheese of the Year: Old Amsterdam

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.