Andy Heath wrote:
> I haven't followed this conversation so I don't
> know if someone else has raised the issue but there
> are reasons that secondary metadata is needed for accessibility
> purposes. For example it is often the case that different
> kinds of transcripts of resources are produced *after* the
> orginal resource, separately and by separate organisations.
Hello Andy,
would I be right in thinking that you are refering to this metadata as
secondary because it is created by someone other than the creator of the
primary resource (or their agent)? In other words, the primary metadata is
that which comes with the resource, the secondary metadata is that which
produced later.
If I'm right in thinking this (and one of the points of this discussion has
been that we should avoid the phrase "secondary metadata" since it means
different things to different people, for example it is used in a differnt
way in the message you're replying to), is the distinction outlined above
worth making? Isn't it all just metadata?
If I'm wrong, are you using the phrase secondary metadata because you're
talking about metadata about a secondary resource?
> A transcript for a particular accessibilty need may be
> produced by a person or an organisation with special
> knowledge of that need and possibly with a real
> situation to deal with (a learner rather than a course).
>
> There is a need for Meta-data describing at least
> the locations of transcripts and other kinds of
> equivalent/alternative media for a resource. This
> is subtly different from dynamic Meta-data with
> only local use.
>
> The mechanism for association of resource and transcript
> is not completely clear yet. In IMS and CEN-ISSS WS-LT
> we are looking at using the relation element of the
> LOM and similar in DC.
Would you be using the isFormatOf type for the relationship?
This doesn't solve all the
> problems, such as how the original gets updated
> when a transcript is created but we're working on it.
>
No, but that is a common problem with the two-way nature of the
relationship element, ie the parings of isFormatOf and hasFormat.
Aggregation and reversioning cause similar problems.
> If anyone wants to feed ideas or experience into this
> process please reply here or if you are able to
> participate and actually do stuff please contact
> me.
>
I think this might related to a problem which Gayle Calverley has had where
different technical formats of a video stream are available for different
bandwidths. Her case has some unique features, but some of the more general
features might be common.
Phil.
> Andy Heath
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> I found your recent debate regarding secondary metadata fascinating
>> particularly as I have to investigate it as part of a literature
>> review for
>> the JORUM+ project.
>>
>> I would be grateful if anybody could confirm this for me but strictly
>> speaking secondary metadata is "used to describe Features of the
>> description
>> rather than the resource" and therefore is another term for
>> 'metametadata',
>> is this correct? So examples of secondary metadata would be creator
>> and date
>> of creation of the metadata record? With that in mind, the issue of
>> subjective comments about resources being termed as secondary metadata is
>> incorrect and should fields like the annotation field be included as a
>> metadata field as this is undoubtedly going to lead to confusion on this
>> subject?
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
> --
> andy
> _______________________________________________
> Andy Heath
> Sheffield Hallam University
> [log in to unmask]
--
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/
|