npjh6 wrote:
> On a serious note, this is not so much a matter of tooLazyToFillItIn but
> tooExpensiveTimeConsumingAndTechnicallyDifficultToFillItInWithAnyDegreeOfAccur
> acyAndTherefore
> BetterLeftBlankOrUnknown :)
>
I'll take that as implying a vote against using a vocabulary to classify
why the MIME type isn't given :-)
> Cataloguers whose skills lie in the area of determining the educational value
> and subject coverage of
> learning resources cannot also be expected in all cases to determine the MIME
> types of the
> *significant* digital objects that when combined, go to make up a resource.
>
Now that you stress it, where does this idea that you need to identify the
*significant* digital object come from? [* see below]
I can't find it in the LOM (which says, in parenthesis, "all of the
components" or in CanCore; UK LOM Core v0.1 says "LOM stipulates that the
technical data types of all compenents are recorded." and the RLLOMAP says
"The MIME type of all compenents should be encoded." The only place I can
find any reference to significant components is in the RLLOMAP Compliance
Guidelines (http://www.ltsn-01.ac.uk/interoperability/compliance_guidelines)
which first echo the "all components" message above but goes on to say "You
need only cite the MIME type of components which are essential to the
educational content of the resource".
I think we put this clause into the Compliance Guidelines because we
thought it might make life easier for cataloguers. If it is hindering the
implementation of automagic MIME detection, then perhaps we should clarify
the Compliance Guidelines.
Phil
[* I think it was possibly me :-} Sorry ]
--
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/
|