On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Lorna M. Campbell wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> >according to the RLLOMAP
> >
> >http://www.rdn.ac.uk/publications/rdn-ltsn/ap/
> >
> >1.2 title should be the 'Name given to this learning object'.
> >
> >The journal title, volume, etc. are *not* part of the name of the learning
> >object. That information should go into
> >
> Have to say I agree with Andy.
>
> >4.3 location
> >
> >in the form of an OpenURL - which is machine-readable. See section 4 of
> >the RLLOMAP (above) and the answer to question 12 of the RDN/LTSN
> >technical FAQ
> >
> >http://www.rdn.ac.uk/publications/rdn-ltsn/faq/
> >
> This is one option, the other option which was suggested by Boon (mail
> dated 5th Nov.) is to use the relation fields of the LOM.
>
> This very issue came up at the IMS meeting in San Jose last week. The
> group drafting the Reading List Interoperability specification wanted to
> know if it is possible to record citations using the LOM. I passed on
> both Andy and Boon's suggestions which everyone agreed were very useful.
> Two contributors to the LOM (Dan Rehak and Claude Ostyn) happened to be
> present and they commented that Boon's suggestions was probably more in
> line with their original thinking although using the location fields as
> Andy suggests is perfectly valid.
I'm not sure I understand this...
4.3 location is defined as 'A string that is used to access this learning
object.' which is *exactly* what an OpenURL is...
7. relation is defined as 'This category defines the relationship between
this learning object and other learning objects, if any.' But we're not
providing information about 'other learning objects' we're providing
information about 'this learning object'. So, putting this information in
relation feels completely wrong to me.
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/
|