On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>
> 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?
I think the aim of such a working group is to 'recommend' a particular set
of elements, qualifiers, schemes and say this set is 'optimised' to fulfil
a particular requirement. In that case I would say yes, the profile can
recommend (or dictate!) one particular scheme.
Rachel
>
> 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
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN (UK Office for Library and Information Networking)
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|