My vote is optional, failing that a recommendation that
application/X-unknown can be used where determining the MIME type(s) is
not possible for practical reasons.
Lorna Campbell wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was off on Friday when most of this debate was taking place and as
> usual you've given me plenty of food for thought. This is the second
> long debate we've had about this particular element in the last six
> months so it appears to be what our transatlantic colleagues would
> refer to as a definite pain point.
>
> Setting aside the issue of how to accurately record MIME types and
> which MIME types to record my primary concern is whether or not this
> element should remain mandatory in the UK LOM Core. I have a new draft
> of the UK LOM Core ready for publication but I am willing to amend the
> guidelines for this element if the community consensus is that 4.1
> Technical.Format should no longer be mandatory. The last time we had
> this debate we did not arrive at any firm conclusion but I wonder if
> list members now have stronger or clearer feelings about this issue?
> It's the intention of the UK LOM Core to reflect community practice and
> as you are primary stakeholders within the UK education community I
> will respect your recommendations.
>
> So what's it to be....Mandatory or Optional (Recommended)?
>
> Bye
> Lorna
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2004, at 10:54, Phil Barker wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
> --
> Lorna M. Campbell
> Assistant Director
> Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
> Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
> +44 (0)141 548 3072
> http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
|