Paul Hollands wrote:
>
> BUT.. :)... from a philosophical point of view should we really be
> citing the MIME type of that flash advert in the header of an XML.com
> article that is entirely unrelated to the content of the article itself,
True enough. especially since by the time the user gets to look at it there
may be a different ad with a different MIME type.
Also, I think UK LOM Core goes too far when it says "LOM stipulates that
the technical data types of all compenents are recorded." Or if it doesn't
go too far then there's a potential problem with the LOM: element
4.1:Format has a smallest permitted maximum of 40, and is unordered. So if
a website uses 50 MIME types (unlikely I admit) but is mostly HTML, should
I list only the most important, or list them all knowing that there is a
chance that some application somewhere will omit the most important ones?
But looking at this pragmatically rather than philosophically, I still
think that this issue should not stand in the way of automatically
harvesting all the MIME types on a page/site where possible.
> and further, do I catalogue the version with all the headers in or the
> print version which will have fewer objects in it?
>
Catalogue them both as two seperate related resources? [ducks] Seriously,
this matters when the print version is more accessible than the other, and
I hope the folk looking into accessibilty related aspects of LOM
cataloguing will come up with something that will drive catalogue interface
design in a direction which makes this feasible.
Phil
--
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/
|