Thanks folks, I stand corrected (must find time to brush up on my LOM!)
- certainly on the use of Taxon for the taxonomy terms.
But, back to Sarah's point, is there then still a need to clarify the
purpose and/or use of 9.4 Keywords, coming as it does in the
Classification section?
Bill
Andy Powell wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Phil Barker wrote:
>
>> Please correct me if I you think I'm wrong, but to me it seems quite
>> clear that both the text and the hierarchy (the Source element is nested
>> in the Taxon Path element, and so relates to the other elements nested
>> in the Taxon Path element, cf. the Purpose element which is at the
>> Classification level and so relates to all elements in that category) in
>> the standard lead me to the conclusion that the 9.2.1 Source element
>> applies only to the element 9.2.2 Taxon, not to 9.4 Keywords (in other
>> words, 9.2.2 Taxon is where you put the terms selected from the taxonomy
>> specified in the TaxonPath).
>
>
> I agree.
>
>>> If it's not clear in the LOM/UK LOM Core documentation how keywording
>>> and classification are supported, then I think you have highlighted a
>>> point of ambiguity, and hence of potential interoperability breakdown,
>>> which should be clarified in a future release of LOM/UK LOM Core.
>>
>>
>> Is there any demand for more authoritative clarification of this?
>> Or for local practice (ie UK LOM Core) to be that you can use element
>> 9.2.1 to specify the source of keywords used in 9.4? --would doing this
>> break anyone's instances?
>
>
> I haven't been following the previous discussion but why would you
> want to
> do this? That would completely ignore the hierarchy in LOM and would be
> bad move IMHO.
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell
> tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask]
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
>
> .
>
|