Are you library types having fun??! You're seriously distracting me from
the rest of my work you know .... :-}
Just to pick up on a couple of points....
Paul's vision of world domination i.e. dissagregate LOM, delete bits
already covered by Dublin Core and use RDF to mix an match has already
bee suggested by dozens of frustrated LOM implementors world wide. I
think even those involved in the development of the LOM agree that if
they knew then what they know now they would not have developed such a
monolithic spec. Hopefully modular will be the way to go in the future.
Sarah's comment about LOM being a baby spec in comparison to
MARC....next time someone complains about having to use LOM I'll quote
you! (Btw Sarah, you are an incorrigible librarian! :-)
Paul's query about serials and collection titles... CanCore suggest the
following:
--Series--
"Examples of series include television shows comprising individual
episodes, individually titled books or e-texts grouped under a common
title, or individually named learning objects grouped together under a
course title. There are several possible solutions to accommodating both
series and individual titles, the first of which is recommended by CanCore:
1. Indicate the title of the individual component or series episode
followed by the series title in parentheses within the title element,
including the word "Series:" at the beginning. This should be simple to
implement, and its syntax lends itself to automated data migration.
2. Include series or secondary title information in
1.5:General.Description. This suggestion does not preserve the important
semantic distinction between title and description, and may present
difficulties for automated data migration.
3. Use the relation element to point from a metadata record for the
series as a whole to those that describe the individual series
components. In the metadata record for the individual episode, text, or
other learning object, enter its title but do not enter the series
title. In the relation element in the same metadata record, reference
the series using the is part of vocabulary item for 7.1:Kind. Finally,
ensure that a separate metadata record for the series itself is created.
In the relation element(s) for this record, use the has part
vocabulary item for 7.1:Kind and reference as many individual series
items as apply. Note that the General and Relation "Identifier" elements
are understood as referring to a learning object itself rather than its
metadata record. Consequently, this method indicates a relationship
between metadata instances only indirectly, and may consequently present
data integrity problems in distributed systems."
Now I'd better get on with the rest of my job...
Bye
Lorna
Paul Hollands wrote:
> Thanks Sarah for formulating my insane mumblings into a cogent argument.
> Even I understand what I was talkling about now :)
>
> I think the only bit that wouldn't really fit in relation is the page
> reference.
>
> Sarah Currier wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy and Paul,
>>
>> I don't think this is part of a discussion about what is a LO at all,
>> although I really like the rest of Paul's email! I think the problem
>> comes out of the complexity we are used to describing in a library
>> catalogue record according to AACR2 and MARC, and what can be done in
>> the LOM, and thus, how do we make the LOM do what MARC can do, or do
>> we do what Paul suggests and mix-and-match? While the LOM looks
>> complex to non-cataloguers' eyes, if you've ever worked with the four
>> volumes of LC guidelines for using MARC, it looks like a little baby
>> spec, barely formed.
>>
>> Anyway, the distinction I THINK Andy is making I have laid out below,
>> to be shot down if necessary:
>>
>> Andy Powell wrote:
>>
>>>> I would have thought that using the Relation element would be another
>>>> way of doing this, but Andy's subsequent email made me think; does
>>>> this
>>>> element only allow for relations to other electronic learning objects,
>>>> or to any resource, such as a journal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess that relation can be used to provide information about 'any
>>> other
>>> resource' (on the basis that for most things, there will be somebody,
>>> somewhere that considers it to be a 'learning object')!
>>>
>>> My point is that, if you are describing a journal article then the
>>> journal
>>> is a 'related resource' (and therefore, information about it could
>>> go into
>>> 'relation') but the citation for 'the article in the journal' is
>>> information about the article - therefore it doesn't belong in
>>> relation.
>>>
>> Took me a minute to get my head round this; now I think you are
>> differentiating between, for the following fabulous article:
>>
>> All About the Correct use of Semi-Colons by Sarah Currier published in
>> the July 1561 issue of the Fully Refereed Journal of Unbelievably Anal
>> Cataloguing Discussions.
>>
>> The "Relation" thing would be:
>> Title: All About the Correct use of Semi-Colons
>> IsPartOf (I'm making this up, can't be bothered looking at the LOM):
>> The Fully Refereed Journal of Unbelievably Anal Cataloguing Discussions
>>
>> The citation thing (which would go in the URL according to Andy)
>> would be:
>> Title: All About the Correct use of Semi-Colons
>> Citation: Fully Refereed Journal of Unbelievably Anal Cataloguing
>> Discussions (July 1561), pp. 23-346.
>>
>> Now, I'm not sure that the latter COULDN'T just go in the relation
>> field, although I take Andy's point about the distinction. I guess the
>> question is, what is the easiest and most useful way to do this for
>> the sake of both end users looking at records, and for sharing,
>> cross-searching and exposing of metadata records?
>>
>> As for series titles and collection titles: good point Paul.
>> Repeatable alternate title would be an excellent element for the LOM.
>>
>> Phew, I don't often get to have fun like this in this job.
>>
>> ;-)
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If Andy's solution was used, how would the information about the
>>>> journal
>>>> be made easily accessible to the end user? Would the user interface
>>>> have
>>>> to take the journal details out of the OpenURL and present them as a
>>>> journal citation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. That's what computers are good at! ;-) The OPenURL is designed to
>>> be machine-parsable.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> --
>>> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
>>> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
>>> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *******************************************
>> Ms. Sarah Currier
>> Coordinator / Research Fellow
>> Educational Content Special Interest Group (EC-SIG)
>> CETIS (Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards)
>> Rm. 2.08B, Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
>> Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
>> Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
>> Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573 Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
>> Web (EC-SIG): http://www.cetis.ac.uk/educational-content/
>> Web (Dept.): http://www.strath.ac.uk/Departments/CAP/
>> *******************************************
>>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Paul Hollands <[log in to unmask]>
> LTSN-01 Information and Web Support Officer
> University of Newcastle, 16/17 Framlington Place
> Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AB
> 0191 222 5888
> <http://www.ltsn-01.ac.uk/>
>
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Assistant Director
Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
+44 (0)141 548 3072
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
|