Andy Powell wrote:
> Given that LOM uses strings rather than URIs to name the Source, I tend to
> agree that despite the issues raised above, a registry of Source names
> would probably be quite a useful pragmatic approach, particularly within
> the context of, say, UK deployment of LOM.
>
How much of a problem would it cause if we were to agree that, within a
UK context, the strings used to name the sources of vocabularies in a
LOM instance should be treatable as URIs?
After all, the entry part of identifier elements are also
CharacterStrings, whether or not you give the catalog part as "URI".
Would we not just be applying the same convention but declaring it at an
application profile level rather than within the LOM instance?
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/
|