Hi Bill,
I get the feeling you didn't actually read my email!
The scenario you mention is likely a valid use case under certain
circumstances. However that is really up to whoever is making the
decisions about the metadata management for that repository or project
or whatever to decide.
My point is that:
1. Classification and keyword indexing are two different things with
different fucntions.
2. Both can be done by anyone, be they publisher, resource author,
cataloguer, or whoever.
3. Keyword indexing can be done with or without a controlled vocabulary.
4. It may be useful to be able to declare what controlled vocabulary is
being used when one is being used (but I'm not sure about this one and
have yet to hear an actual practical argument either way).
5. Decisions about how the above four things are done within a given
situation should be up to whoever is making the decisions for that
situation given what their needs, context and circumstances are.
6. The LOM and the UK LOM Core should therefore allow for all the above
options (including 4. if the wider community shows there is a need for
it) and not dictate which they think people SHOULD be doing.
Cheers
Sarah
Bill Olivier wrote:
> Hi Sarah
>
> I wonder if the questions you ask arise from MD serving two different
> but related roles/purposes:
> 1. The Publisher's description of their LO (e.g. the publisher's front
> page of a book (is there a name for this?))
> 2. Independent Librarians/Catalogers' classification of a LO (e.g. a
> catalogue card)
>
> Not surprisingly, I think you are wearing the second hat.
>
> I would think that LO publishers should use General 1.5:Keyword when
> they want to add whatever terms they think relevant, especially if they
> are not familiar with available taxonomies.
>
> My understanding (but its a long time since I looked at it!) is that the
> classification section's 9.4:Keywords should only contain the relevant
> terms from the vocabulary/taxonomy specified in the 9.2:Taxonpath.
>
> So if you have a known vocabulary use the 9:Classification section, if
> not use 1.5:Keyword (a place for non-librarians/ taxonomists to play
> :-) .
>
> My understanding is (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that you are
> permitted to have multiple instances of 9:Classification and therefore
> this is the place to use multiple taxonomies when needed. e.g. in the
> context of Grainne's development of three taxonomies for Learning
> Activities (Context, Pedagogical Approach, Task), each could have a
> separate classification element as part of a profile using LOM for
> Learning Activities (which will doubtless cause all sorts of debate
> about whether a learning activity can be a learning object...)
>
> Bill
>
> Sarah Currier wrote:
>
>> Hi Scott
>>
>> Thanks for teasing this out a bit more for us non-techies! This does
>> look useful.
>>
>> Scott Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> If something is being used as a keyword rather than a classification,
>>> I would suggest the source of the keyword isn't that critical,
>>
>>
>>
>> I need to think about this. You may well be right... interesting.
>> Might consult some of my Info Science colleagues across the road.
>>
>> Ahh, the CETIS Metadata SIG. It's so kewl isn't it, getting answers,
>> having assumptions challenged, etc. etc.?
>>
>> 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
*******************************************
|