This is a good point because it may be important in future. Within the
intraLibrary repository, administrators are able to use any string for
the source of a taxonomy. However, when an object is exported from one
repository and imported into another, the Source is used to try to
identify if the same classification scheme is in use in the new repository.
We really need a taxonomy registry in which recognised source codes can
be registered and variants of standard taxonomies can be identified.
Charles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intrallect Ltd [log in to unmask]
Braehead Business Park Tel: +44 (0)870 234 3933
Braehead Road Fax: +44 (0)1506 50 5117
Linlithgow, EH49 6EP, Scotland http://www.intrallect.com/
Sarah Currier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Yes, it's me again... more LOM related questions. I have two, which I
> will do in separate emails.
>
> Firstly, in the LOM element 9.2.1 TaxonPath:Source we are supposed to
> say what classification scheme, taxonomy, etc. is being used in that
> instance. As we will have in our repository two or three taxonomies
> which have not been previously used, I wondered if there is a common or
> standard way of creating the code entered here (I know MARC has a list
> of such codes maintained by the Library of Congress). The taxonomies we
> will be using are not so much local, as ones which haven't been used in
> LOM metadata yet, but may be in future.
>
> What have other folk done and how important is this anyway?
>
> I note that in the CanCore guidelines they give an example where they
> declare the National Library of Canada's version of Dewey as: "DDC
> NLC-BNC http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/caninfo/" ... so they don't use the MARC
> practice of small letters rather than capitals, and they include a URL
> (which incidentally doesn't lead straight to the taxonomy, it leads you
> to your first step (of several) in finding their subject browse page
> where the taxonomy is used). I do think that including a URL to the
> source of the taxonomy is a good idea though- I'm not sure where else
> that information would go.
>
> Feedback, discussion, etc. welcome.
>
> Second question coming shortly..
> Thanks
> Sarah
>
--
|