Hi Again
>> cataloguring interface altogether.
>>
>> I fully take the points from you and Charles that this is useful
>> information, but it isn't useful if it is hard to capture,
>
> and at the end of the day I would rather remove this from our
>
> Not sure I would agree with you on that point.
>
>> or wrongly filled in.
>
>
> ... in which case it becomes a metadata quality control issue.
>
I think that part of the problem here is that it is, I'm afraid, in the
nature of our particular project that most cataloguers in LTSN Subject
Centres are not going to be metadata specialists / information
scientists, but a whole mixture of people, and therefore things need to
be made as simple as possible.
From the point of view of quality control this is undesirable, and
whilst steps are being taken to provide training and assistance, I'm
afraid that this is the fact of the matter for us.
>>
>> If someone does have a reliable automatic tool, that can discern what
>> is educationally relevant from what is fluff, then I would love to
>> hear about it.
>
>
> This is unrealistic... an object that is "educationally relevant" in
> one context may be quite irrelevant in another.
>
I don't think I was clear here - I would contend that a 1 pixel spacer
GIF is never going to be relevant to anybody, but it will be reported as
a MIME type by an automated tool. An extreme example maybe, but it is
this sort of incidental material that automated tools turn up.
> My main concern with removing 4.1 from application profiles is that you
> also remove a relatively popular search option from users.
Agreed, but I wonder if this could be partially ameliorated with good
cataloguing guidelines for otherplatformrequirements? Won't be perfect
I know.
I think we appreciate that one project should not drive changes to
standards higher up, but some of us do feel that we have a significant
problem with this field in particular, but are finding the rest of our
UK LOM Core compliant Application Profile manageable.
Best
Nik
|