On 14 Jul 2004, at 15:09, Andrew Middleton wrote:
> I hope this doesn't appear to contradict what I said earlier(!) but in
> my
> experience of supporting people with WAI, having 'optional' levels of
> compliance in effect means there is a great tendency amongst academic
> staff
> and support staff to work to the lowest level. So people think
> they're 'doing' accessibility without really having understood the
> reasons/need for greater compliance - or at least it makes life
> simpler for
> them to do the minimum. Levels of compliance are raised when
> conditions/systems insist they should be. So using this parallel for
> UK LOM
> would suggest that the community would tend to work with a low level of
> mandatory elements unless it was working within a particular framework
> or
> CoP. What sort of CoPs would insist on higher levels of compliance
> (JISC
> funded projects perhaps, particular CoPs with special profiles?)...
> It all feels a bit messy and 'messy' and 'interoperability' don't seem
> natural companions.
I may appear messy but this is more or less that way that the UK LOM
Core is designed to work! I've said many times that I don't expect
most implementors to use the profile as is. I have always envisaged
that implementers will develop their own specific application profile
based on the UK LOM Core. The whole point of the mandated core
element set is to ensure basic interoperability between customised LOM
profiles. So I guess we already have different "levels of
conformance". The X4L profile for example mandated the use of LOM
elements and vocabularies that are not part of the basic core.
> Would it not be better to go back to Andy's original
> question and just review the need for so many madatory elements within
> our
> community? Then adjust the UK LOM if necessary.
I'm not entirely sure that this is what Andy was suggesting! However I
think it is definitely worth reviewing the mandatory elements so here
they are :-)
1. General: identifier (catalog & entry), title, language, description.
2. Lifecycle: contribute (role & entity).
3. Meta-metadata: identifier (catalog & entry), contribute (role &
entity), schema, language.
4. Technical: location.
6. Rights: copyright and other restrictions, description.
Hope I haven't missed any out :-}
Bye
Lorna
--
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/
|