Hi there,
Andy H. said:
>I think we do need the approaches to converge. There are benefits
>to both. Keeping the set of mandatory elements small would be
>a good step because it goes in this direction.
A few list members have suggested that the mandatory element set is too large
and should be reduced. Phil said he didn't mind repetition on this list so
here's the set of 18 mandatory simple data elements once again:
1. General: identifier (catalog & entry), title, language, description.
2. Lifecycle: contribute (role, entity, date).
3. Meta-metadata: identifier (catalog & entry), contribute (role,
entity, date), schema, language.
4. Technical: location.
6. Rights: copyright and other restrictions, description.
(Eagle eyed SIG members might have noticed that I forgot to include the date
elements last time round).
Andy P has suggested that the mandatory core should be reduced to 4 simple
data elements:
1. General: identifier (catalog & entry)
3. Meta-metadata: identifier (catalog & entry)
There has already been some debate as to the relative merits of mandating
title and rights elements, what do other list memebrs think?
If we were to keep a mandatory element set, ideally what should this core
consist of?
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/
|