Erik, just a few comments in response to your astute observations:

[1][2] As for comments one and two regarding the status of "audience", in
May of last year, the Usage Board approved a proposal for a 16th (domain
specific) element named "audience" and issued a DCMI recommendation.  At the
same time, it issued a DCMI recommendation for a (domain specific) qualifier
for the "audience" element named "mediator" as well as a (domain specific)
"conformsTo" qualifier for the "relation" element.  The documentation for
those decisions can be found at
http://www.dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2001/education-01.shtml#audiencequ
alifier.

In this proposal for an :audience" element qualifier, the suggested
namespace is http://purl.org/dc/terms.  As a result of a DCMI recommendation
regarding its namespaces, there are only two namespaces at this time for
DCMI "terms" (elements and element qualifiers).  The first is
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ which contains _only_ the original
unqualified 15 core elements.  The second is http://purl.org/dc/terms/ which
now contains, and will continue to contain until a different decision is
made, absolutely all other elements and element qualifiers (terms) issued as
DCMI recommendations.  As a result, I believe the http://purl.org/dc/terms
namespace is the correct one for the proposed term since there are no others
available. The document outlining DCMI namespaces can be found at
http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2001/10/26/dcmi-namespace/.
(Unfortunately, the http://purl.org/dc/terms/ namespace resolves to an RDF
document that is not completely accurate.)

As to your question regarding the use of the words "element" and "term", it
is my understanding that "term" is used to encompass both elements and
element qualifiers in DCMI namespaces.  Someone please correct me if I am
wrong.

[3] Erik, as for part three of your comments regarding who the audience in
the US example actually is, your point is well made.  However, an
educational resource may have more than one audience as that element is
defined and refined in DCMI through its "mediator" qualifier.  For example,
a resource may be intended for use with 5th graders as in the example and
yet not be designed to be put directly into their hands while other
resources may well be so designed.  Let's refine the example in the
proposal.  Assume that a special education teacher in the US is looking for
resources for use with 5th grade students with attention deficit disorder
(ATD).  That can currently be expressed in DC as follows:

Audience=Students with ATD
Audience.mediator=Special education teacher

Conceptually, the proposed "audienceLevel" is intended to address the status
of the ultimate beneficiary.  Of course, it is less problematic when the
resource is intended for use directly by some class of student as are many
learning objects.

[4] Erik, as for part four of your comments, you are correct--the sentence
is incomplete.  It should read: ""While the promise [remains] of an
application profile that makes possible the integration of elements from the
LOM namespace with those of the DCMI through the use of a publicly
accessible, DCMI registered application profile, movement toward such an
interoperable solution has been painfully slow."

Hope this helps clarify.

Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: Jul,Erik [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Comments/questions: Proposal for audienceLevel Qualifier for the
Audience Element

Dear Usage Board and DC-General:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on "Proposal for
audienceLevel Qualifier for the Audience Element."

Here are some comments/questions:

1. The document in question references http://purl.org/dc/terms/, "The
Dublin Core Element Set Qualifier Vocabulary."  Had not the URL for this
document been provided, I don't think I would have found it on the DCMI Web
site.  I searched for it in many different ways and was unable to locate it.
That notwithstanding, I am uncertain of the status of this document.  It is
not a DCMI Recommendation, nor is it a DCMI Proposed Recommendation or DCMI
Draft Proposal.  The document I would consult for DCMES Qualifiers is
http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/07/11/dcmes-qualifiers/.

As far as I can tell, "audience" is defined in http://purl.org/dc/terms/, a
document whose status is uncertain, at least from my perspective.  Maybe I'm
missing something critical; if so, please advise me.

2. If http://purl.org/dc/terms/ is a definitive and authoritative document,
it defines "audience" as a "term," not as an "element."

- <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/terms/audience">
  <rdfs:label>Audience</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>A class of entity for whom the resource is intended or
useful.</rdfs:comment>
  <eor:comment>A class of entity may be determined by the creator or the
publisher or by a third party.</eor:comment>
  <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" />
  </rdf:Property>

The document
http://www.dublincore.org/groups/education/Audience-Level-Proposal.shtml#top
refers "audience" as an "element" (e.g., "Qualified Element Namespace,"
"Qualified Element Name," "Element Qualifier Namespace," etc.).

I am confused by the use of the words "element" and "term."  Do they have
different meanings within the DCMI context?  If so, what are the
differences?  If not, why are we using two different words?

3. The document http://purl.org/dc/terms/ defines "audience" as:

 <rdfs:comment>A class of entity for whom the resource is intended or
useful.</rdfs:comment>

(I reproduce the <rdf:comment> because I assume that the comment is akin to
a definition, although I am not sure.  Another comment is also provided, but
it does not seem to be a definition.)

Any qualifier to this term would tell us more about the "A class of entity
for whom the resource is intended or useful."  It is refining the intended
"class of entity," not the resource being described.

So, the example provided in
http://www.dublincore.org/groups/education/Audience-Level-Proposal.shtml#top
gives the following:


United States Example:
A fifth grade teacher wants to find lesson plans intended for use with
students in grade five. She might search for "audienceLevel='Grade 5'" using
the U.S. Department of Education's Level of Education vocabulary

In this example, a *teacher* seeks *lesson plans* for use with fifth
graders.

The "audience" for the lesson plan, that is, the intended user of the lesson
plan, is (in common U.S. parlance) an elementary school teacher, not
fifth-grade students.

According to
http://www.dublincore.org/groups/education/Audience-Level-Proposal.shtml#top
, one definition of "audienceLevel" is as follows:

"a [...] statement of the location of the audience in terms of its
progression through an education or training sector."

Using the same example, above, if the resource (a lesson plan) were
described using the qualified term "audienceLevel='Grade 5'", that would
seem to say that the *intended user* of the lesson plan is at a particular
"location...in terms of its progression through an education or training
sector," namely, grade five.

This is clearly not the case.  The intended user of the document is a
teacher, not a fifth-grade student.

If I have properly understood the definitions, above, I then see a logical
confusion between:

intended user = teacher

and (I made this up)

"toBeUsedWith" = fifth-graders

"audienceLevel" must refine "audience."  Audience is defined as the "A class
of entity for whom the resource is intended or useful."  Audience is the
intended user of the resource, in the example given, a teacher.  If we
modify audience with audienceLevel=Grade 5, we are saying that the intended
user of the document is in the fifth grade, which would be a false
statement.  The teacher is not in the fifth grade.  The teacher is a
fifth-grade teacher.  There is a considerable difference.

4. The following is not a grammatically complete sentence (there is a verb
missing):

"While the promise of an application profile that makes possible the
integration of elements from the LOM namespace with those of the DCMI
through the use of a publicly accessible, DCMI registered application
profile, movement toward such an interoperable solution has been painfully
slow."

--Erik

Erik Jul
[log in to unmask]