Cheers for this Phil.
As a follow-on from my own grappling with this, I do think this is an
issue that could be clarified in the UK LOM Core, since the LOM itself
is a standard now and won't be messed with for a while. Here's the
simple version of what I'd like the UK LOM Core to take on board:
1. There are two things: keyword indexing, and classification. They are
different, serve different functions, and are both important.
2. Classification always involves a controlled vocabulary: these are
declared in the LOM.
3. Keyword indexing may or may not involve a controlled vocabulary of
some description (or several controlled vocabularies). This is a matter
for those managing an individual project, resource etc., and should not
be dictated by a metadata standard or the UK LOM Core. Where keyword
indexing does involve a publicly available controlled vocabulary (as
opposed to an internal authority list as HLSI use) I think it would be
sensible to make this clear in the metadata as with other vocabularies
in the LOM.
4. In neither case should the metadata standard or the UK LOM Core
dictate who creates the metadata for either element. Again this is a
matter for those managing the project, service, etc. to decide. (e.g.,
see UK LOM Core under 1.5:Keyword - "These keywords should ideally be
created by the author of the resource".)
I wonder if there is some way of also making this clear in the IMS
Metadata Best Practice Guide?
Best
Sarah
Phil Barker wrote:
> Hi Sarah,
> Yep, there's a certain amount of arbitrary duplication between 1.5
> keyword, 9.4 keyword and 9.2 taxonPath. TaxonPath is the only one that
> allows you to give a "source". So if you want to tell people which
> controlled vocabulary you are using then either you use 9.2 taxonPath or
> you have to rely on people knowing your application profile (and the
> latter only works if you're only using one source for all records--and I
> know scenarios where a single record ends up with keywords from
> different sources).
>
> The RDN LTSN LOM Application profile uses 1.5 for (uncontrolled)
> keywords and 9.2 for taxonomies used for browsing, some of which are
> based on controlled vocabularies / thesaurii. (Uncontrolled is in
> brackets because I don't whether individual centres/hubs are using
> controlled keywords in 1.5, the point is that there is no control across
> the project as a whole.) It is also suggested that the terms used in the
> taxon path might be reproduced in 1.5 so that they are searched by those
> systems that don't automatically search the taxonPath when a user does a
> free text search.
>
> I'll let CanCore know about the inconsistency in their Guidelines.
>
> All the best, 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/
>
--
*******************************************
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
*******************************************
|