Hi all,

I am busy developing our LOM application profile for the Stòr Cùram 
repository and wondered what other folk are doing with the two Keyword 
elements (1.5 Keyword and 9.4 Keyword).

It has always seemed to me to be overly fiddly of the LOM to have a 
separate keyword element attached to each classification. I suppose if 
you had loads of time and money to catalogue things to that level of 
perfection there are things you could do with it in terms of enhancing 
searching, but who does?

So, my intention (before I started looking at the LOM, the UK LOM Core 
and the CanCore Guidelines) was to leave 9.4 Keyword out of our AP and 
just use 1.5 Keyword for any and all keywords describing a resource.

However, being a librarian with an interest in controlled vocabularies, 
I assumed I would follow the practice I have always used in the past in 
cataloguing: to use a controlled vocabulary (or vocabularies) for the 
assignment of keywords, rather than natural language keywords. Of 
course, resource creators could list their own keywords to describe the 
resource when submitting to the repository, but at the point of formally 
checking and cataloguing the resource, these would be checked against 
the controlled vocabulary, keywords would be changed if different but 
equivalent terms were found in the controlled vocabulary, and any 
additional terms not found in the controlled vocabulary would be added 
to it for any future use, using thesaurus standards.

Now, I can't see that the LOM itself specifically disallows this 
approach; nor can I see how it WOULD be implemented.

Both the UK LOM Core and CanCore seem to specifically disallow this 
approach for 1.5 Keyword, CanCore saying under 1.5 "Use 
9.4:Classification.Keyword in place of 1.5:General:Keyword when keywords 
or values are derived from an identifiable taxonomy or vocabulary ...".

However, then under 9.4:Keyword, CanCore says:

"Keywords are assigned by the record creator based on his/her 
interpretation of the learning resource's properties. As such, keywords 
are either derived from the resource itself or from an indexer's 
interpretation of the resource. They are not derived from an external 
vocabulary. Terms derived from an external vocabulary are best dealt 
with in 9.2:TaxonPath".

This not only appears to contradict their previous statement, it is 
nonsense from an information management point of view. Indexing by 
keyword may be done with or without an external controlled vocabulary. 
In both cases the keywords are derived from the resource itself or the 
indexer's interpretation of the resource- the use of a controlled 
vocabulary simply means that there is some authority control over the 
forms of terms used within a given catalogue, so you don't end up with 
unnecessary plurals, synonyms etc. which may interfere with efficient 
searching (or may not- I'm not trying to resurrect the whole information 
science battle over natural language vs. controlled vocabulary vs. 
machine indexing).

Classifying, which is my interpretation of what the 9.2:Taxon Path 
element is for, is a different task with a different purpose.

I feel this muddle has been present all along in the IEEE/IMS community 
(well, it looks like a muddle to someone with a library background).

Ultimately, what I want to do is use a standard subject thesaurus in my 
subject area to support efficient authority control of keyword indexing 
in my repository. I suppose there's nothing to stop us doing that, but 
the thesaurus we use would not be declared anywhere in our metadata 
records. I think.

Anyone got any practical experience with this?

Any other thoughts on the matter (and can we please NOT get into the 
natural language vs. controlled vocabulary debate?- there will be many 
for whom my query is irrelevant because they want to use natural 
language indexing, but I can guarantee there will be others in the 
future with this same question about the LOM).

Best wishes
Sarah

-- 
*******************************************
Ms. Sarah Currier
Librarian, Stòr Cùram Project
"A Storehouse of Learning Resources for Social Care"
Dept. of Social Work, University of Strathclyde
c/o: Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
Web: http://www.storcuram.ac.uk/
Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573   Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
E-mail: [log in to unmask]   Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
Stòr Cùram is Gaelic for Storehouse of Care
*******************************************