Ronan, at this point, I think I am going to move the
Audience.Level proposal and its draft semantics on by
suggesting that the DC-Ed Working Group "recommend" it
to the DC Usage Committee.
============================
--Recommended Audience Element Qualifier: "Level"
--Description: "A general statement describing the education
or training sector. Alternatively, a more specific statement of
the location of the audience in terms of its progression through
an education or training sector. Where available, such statements
should be expressed in terms of a recognized national or local
scheme."
--Recommended Value Qualifiers (Schemes): Recognized national
or local vocabularies
--Examples: "Lower secondary" (U.S.; general statement)
"Grades 7 & 8" (U.S.; specific statement)
============================
Ronan, I think we need to begin a discussion of how a
meta-scheme to which national and local schemes might
be mapped should be constructed. I have referred on several
occasion's to Keith Stubbs work because he is, as far as I am
aware, the furthest along looking at a mapping. However, in
Keith's table, he takes as his base referent (the columns in his
table) the U.S. designations as expressed in the GEM grade
vocabulary (with more granular treatment of higher education).
_If_ the expressions of the column labels are generally
(universally?) applicable, we might see if we can express them
more generally by assigning neutral labels (numbers?). Any
suggestions?
Stuart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bradtap [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 2:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Semantics for AudienceLevel
>
>
> Stuart et al,
> I think that Stuart's form of words is an eloquent solution.
> There is, as
> mentioned, also the possibility to repeat the AudienceLevel
> as required.
> The work being done by Keith Stubbs
> http://inet.ed.gov/~kstubbs/levelofed.pdf
> is most useful. When will a functioning meta-scheme by
> available ? Here in
> the UK there seems to be a need for something akin to this,
> also I think
> that at some stage a mapping would be investigated.
> regards
> Ronan
>
> Stuart Sutton writes:
>
> > I really must apologize for being so long away from the
> thread of this
> > conversation. This morning I reread the messages from Ronan, Diane
> > and Jenny and thought I'd respond to the points raised by you all.
> >
> > (1) First, thank you, Diane, for rewording my very awkward
> statement of
> > the semantics. I also think that Jenny is correct in
> stating that changing
> > the wording from "that sector" to "a sector" resolves part of the
> > difficulties
> > identified by Ronan. Also, the expansion of the wording to
> "an educational
> > or
> > training sector" also makes sense.
> >
> > (2) As to whether a given record might have _both_ a
> general and a local
> > statement (e.g., in the U.S. putting in both "Lower
> Secondary" and "Grades:
> > 7, 8 & 9), I see no reason why there could not be both in multiple
> > occurrences
> > of Audience.Level in the same record. I don't know that I
> would necessarily
> >
> > choose to do that but can see no reason why others might
> not find it useful.
> >
> > (3) When I made my stab at a statement, I intended the "as
> expressed in a
> > given national or local scheme" to apply to both the general and the
> > specific.
> > Of course, nothing in the DC architecture compels the use
> of recognized
> > schemes--nothing compels the use of specific value
> qualifiers. However, we
> > are all aware that usage of such schemes improves
> retrieval. _If_ we use
> > recognized schemes, we also make it possible to map across
> them or to
> > map them to some higher-level meta-scheme. In fact,
> developing such a
> > meta-scheme was part of the discussion in Ottawa and the
> utility of such a
> > mapping is illustrated by Keith Stubb's work:
> >
> > http://inet.ed.gov/~kstubbs/levelofed.pdf
> >
> > One solution would be to reword the statement of semantics
> once again by
> > separating the "as expressed in a given national or local
> scheme," making
> > it clear that it applies to both general and specific and
> stating it in
> > terms
> > of a sort of "best practice"? Thus, the semantics might
> read as follows:
> >
> > "A general statement describing the education or training sector.
> > Alternatively, a more specific statement of the location of
> the audience
> > in terms of its progression through am education or training sector.
> > Where available, such statements should be expressed in terms of
> > a recognized national or local scheme."
> >
> > However, this point raises a VERY interesting question
> regarding DC-Ed
> > as an "application profile." In such a profile, can a DC
> working group
> > actually
> > restrict application of DC general principles in terms of
> the domain under
> > consideration. In other words, can a working group decide
> that "best
> > practices" _dictate_ the use of scheme's or a particular scheme?
> >
> > Stuart
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
> > The Information School
> > University of Washington
> > Suite 370, Mary Gates Hall
> > Box 352840
> > Seattle, WA 98195-2840
> > [log in to unmask]
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jenny Slater [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 8:36 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Semantics for AudienceLevel
> > >
> > >
> > > Diane et al.,
> > >
> > > The problem with the either/or aspect of the definition, can
> > > be dealt with
> > > if we can clarify the points which Ronan raised. I quote:
> > >
> > > "Could there not be both a general and a specific
> statement ? If the
> > > specific statement is employed how does it refer to 'that
> > > sector' when the
> > > general statement is not employed?"
> > >
> > > My own opinion is that there need only be either a general or
> > > a specific
> > > statement, for the AudienceLevel, and I can certainly see the
> > > need for the
> > > either/or aspect even though it does seem to be a bit lacking in
> > > definitiveness. I think that my point is the same as yours,
> > > that is, if we
> > > are to be fuzzy about the definition itself, then we need to
> > > be clear in
> > > our wording of it. Hence my problem about which statements
> > > the schemes will
> > > apply to.
> > >
> > > As I see it, the bit about the national or local schemes
> > > should apply to
> > > the specific statement only, if it is possible to limit it to
> > > this. This is
> > > how the definition reads in your version of it, but if it is
> > > meant to apply
> > > to both statements, then surely we need to express this in an
> > > unequivocal
> > > manner in our definition?
> > >
> > > For the second part of Ronan's enquiry, the wording "that
> > > sector" appears
> > > to be the crux of the matter, and were it changed to "a
> > > sector" it seems
> > > that the problem would be eliminated. It could even be
> expanded to "an
> > > educational or training sector". There would not be a need to
> > > describe the
> > > sector additionally, since the sense of the sector would be
> > > expressed by
> > > the more specific statement.
> > >
> > > In fact, in the case of the collection which I am building,
> > > at the moment
> > > all of the resources will belong to the one general
> sector, which is
> > > precisely why we need a more specific statement of audience
> > > level. If other
> > > collections need to use both the general and the specific
> > > statements, could
> > > they not use the element twice? Or have I misunderstood
> the meaning of
> > > "Maximum Occurrence: Unlimited"?
> > > (http://purl.org/dc/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm)
> > >
> > > Jenny
> > >
> > > At 09:56 13/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >Jenny, et al.:
> > > >
> > > >Before we get to far into clarification, I think it's
> important to
> > > >remember that DC is by definition a collection of very
> fuzzy buckets,
> > > >and an either/or statement is not necessarily improper in that
> > > >context. As you say, using a scheme of some sort may be possible
> > > >with both kinds of statements, but using a scheme is
> also a fairly
> > > >generic proposition with DC.
> > > >
> > > >Diane
> > > >
> > > >>Ronan,
> > > >>
> > > >>I see your point about the possibility of creating two
> > > separate elements.
> > > >>The more I think about it, the more I think that we need a
> > > definition which
> > > >>does not have an "Either/Or" aspect to it. At first I
> > > thought that you
> > > >>might have been confusing the need to state which national
> > > or local scheme
> > > >>was being used to describe the progression, with the
> > > statement of the
> > > >>sector. They do not work as equivalents of each other, and
> > > I was busy
> > > >>trying to explain this, when I re-read the original
> > > definition. There is
> > > >>some ambiguity as to whether the "given national or local
> > > scheme" applies
> > > >>only to the statement of progression or to both statements.
> > > It might be
> > > >>possible to use an internationally agreed terminology to
> > > describe the
> > > >>education or training sectors, if it were simple enough. It
> > > would certainly
> > > >>be useful, although I'm not expert enough to know whether
> > > or not it is
> > > >>actually feasible.
> > > >>
> > > >>So Stuart, can you clarify which stament(s) you intended
> > > the bit about the
> > > >>national or local scheme to apply to?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Jenny Slater
> > > >>
> > > >>At 11:39 13/12/00 GMT, you wrote:
> > > >>>Stuart,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I support your approach; the distinctions you have teased
> > > out are most
> > > >>>helpful. As for the wording, I think that Diane's edit
> > > (copied below)
> > > which
> > > >>>breaks your first attempt into two sentences certainly
> > > improves the sense
> > > >>>It also however emphasises a point which I should like to
> > > explore further.
> > > >>>Does there need to be either a general statement _or_
> > > (Diane suggests
> > > >>>_alternatively_) a specific statement. Could there not be
> > > both a general
> > > >>>and a specific statement ? If the specific statement is
> > > employed how
> > > does it
> > > >>>refer to 'that sector' when the general statement is not
> > > employed ?
> > > >>>I wonder if my logic is correct here, might the element be
> > > repeated - any
> > > >>>views ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>""A general statement describing the education or training
> > > sector of the
> > > >>>audience for the resource. Alternatively, a more specific
> > > statement of the
> > > >>>location of the audience in terms of its progression
> > > through that sector as
> > > >>>expressed in a given national or local scheme."
> > > >>>Diane"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Ronan O' Beirne
> > > >>>Senior Information Officer
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Bradford Training Access Points
> > > >>>Shipley Library, 2,Wellcroft
> > > >>>Shipley, West Yorkshire
> > > >>>BD18 3QH
> > > >>>United Kingdom
> > > >>> http://www.learn-in-bradford.co.uk
> > > >>>Tel: +44 (01274) 757155
> > > >>>Fax: +44 (01274) 530247
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>Jenny Slater, FAILTE Project Officer,
> > > >>LTSN Engineering,
> > > >>Loughborough University,
> > > >>Leicestershire,
> > > >>LE11 3TU
> > > >>
> > > >>Tel. 01509 227 192
> > > >>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > > >>Web page: http://failte.lboro.ac.uk
> > > >
> > >
> >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> > > >Diane I. Hillmann
> > > >Metadata Specialist
> > > >National Science Digital Library Project at Cornell
> > > >Department of Computer Science Voice: 607/255-5691
> > > >419 Rhodes Hall Fax: 607/255-4428
> > > >Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Jenny Slater, FAILTE Project Officer,
> > > LTSN Engineering,
> > > Loughborough University,
> > > Leicestershire,
> > > LE11 3TU
> > > UK
> > >
> > > Tel. (+44) 01509 227 192
> > > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > > Web page: http://failte.lboro.ac.uk
> > >
>
>
> Ronan O'Beirne
> Senior Information Officer
> Bradford Training Access Points
> Shipley Library, 2,Wellcroft
> Shipley, West Yorkshire
> BD18 3QH
> United Kingdom
> http://www.learn-in-bradford.co.uk
> Tel: +44 (01274) 757155
> Fax: +44 (01274) 530247
>
|
