For Info: the RDN-LTSN work on learning resource type vocabulary is now
(hopefully) coming to a conclusion. Input from SIG members on any of the
issues would be welcome, especially on issue 10: can this vocabulary (or a
version of it) be adopted for incorporation into the UK LOM Core?
Phil.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RDN-LTSN Resource types
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:45:35 +0100
From: Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: ICBL, MACS Heriot-Watt University
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear All,
I'm aware that there has been discussion of various issues arising from the
draft RDN-LTSN resource types vocabulary
(http://www.rdn.ac.uk/publications/rdn-ltsn-ap/types/), and many useful
suggestions have been made, but no progress on deciding what changes need
to be made before taking the "draft" out of the title. I hope we can remedy
this over the next couple of weeks.
I have attempted to summarise all the points which were raised and some of
the replies to these in a spreadsheet (you can find it at
http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/res-type-vocab/). Please take a look at
this and let me know if I have missed anything. Also let me know if I have
closed any issues which you think should be re-opened. It's not too late to
late to add new issues ... but soon it will be.
Please also let me know what you think about the following suggested
resolutions/suggestions (they are pretty much in the order which I think we
can resolve the issues):
1)
Some of the issues can be closed by changing the wording of the definitions
in the Resource Types Vocabulary document. Unless anyone tells me otherwise
before the end of this week I shall do this for issues: 9, 18, 19, 20,
21, 23, 29.
2)
I think that that the answer to issue 31 (actually issue 1 from Andy's
original types document), over whether the division into Learner and
Educator resource types implies two resource type lists is no. The division
is useful for defining the terms and might (in some subjects) be a useful
division to make when presenting them to cataloguers and users, but there
should only be one (flat) rdn-ltsn resource type vocabulary.
3)
Several issues relate to items from the "possible additions to the RDN
Resource Type list", and we're not even sure whether it is possible to add
to this list (that's issue 31). Any suggestions on how we could approach
this problem?
4)
How much would it hurt people if resource type names were changed and/or
new resource types were added? Please let me know if you think it would
cause more problems than it might solve. I would like to clear at least the
first two points above before we start discussion on what the changes might
be, but it would help if that discussion were informed by an idea of how
"locked-in" people were to the existing list.
5)
If anyone has written any guidance for cataloguers or users, expanding on
the definitions resource type list please share them. This will help with
producing "scope notes" for the terms (issues 1).
Any comments, suggestions etc, welcome. In general I would prefer it if the
discussion took place on the LTSN-technical Jiscmail list.
Phil.
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
|