David Balch wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>>From: Phil Barker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>But then you might as well just have identifiers for the HTML
>>files and not
>>bother about lifecycle.version.
>
>
> Unless I'm missing something here, with hashes as identifiers, your
> reference to a resource breaks when you change the resource file (and it's
> hash).
>
> I'm thinking that a resource may evolve over time, but it's main
> use/relevance will stay the same. So surely we do need both - the identifier
> to say "this is a particular resource", and the lifecycle.version to say
> "this is version 1" (or whatever value), otherwise how will we be able to
> update.
>
I was assuming that you would want an identifier for each version of the
resource. I know it is important in some contexts to be able to pull up the
same version of a resource as the student was given when studying
(especially if later versions might have had errors corrected!). You could
use identifier+version, but would this be resolvable?
This comes back to what is the resource being identified: work?
manifestation? item? The LOM has a mechanism for relating different
versions of a resource, which would work best if the related versions have
their own identifier (relation.kind = isVersionOf,
relation.resource.identifier = ...; or relation.kind = isBasedOn if the
change does not merit calling the result a new version)
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/
|