Hi there,
I've finally got round to reading my way through this post. I was busy
planning the CodeBash while you guys were having fun with keywords! :-)
I think almost all the points I would have made have been raised at
some stage by other people so I don't think there's much I can really
add to the debate.
For the record though:
1. I agree that having two keyword elements in the LOM is desperately
confusing.
2. I agree that it could be useful to be able to specify the source of
keywords in these elements.
3. I agree that the keywords in 9.4 do not need to come from the
classification scheme identified in 9.2.1.
4. My understanding of 9.4 is that it is designed to enable the
addition of keywords (which may or may not be from a controlled
vocabulary of some kind) according to purpose. So for example if the
vocabulary term you select for 9.1 is "discipline" then the keywords
would relate to the "discipline" of the resource, but need not
necessarily come from the "discipline" taxonomy identified in 9.2.1.
Alternatively if the purpose of 9.1 is "accessibility" then the
keywords would also describe the "accessibility" of the resource. (I'm
sure I don't need to encourage you to respond if you disagree with
these assumptions, although I suspect you may all already have had
enough fo this debate!)
5. In terms of whether or no the UK LOM Core should dictate metadata
workflow, I'm inclined to agree with Phil and Sarah that it should not.
I'm happy to amend the guidelines for 1.5 accordingly but if I do
this, for the sake of consistency, I will also have to amend several
other guidelines, such as 1.1.2 General.Identifier.Entry which
currently reads: "The actual value of the identifier. This value
should be generated by the application whenever possible." Are list
members happy with this?
Bye for now
Lorna
On 17 Mar 2005, at 10:30, Phil Barker wrote:
> Hello Jane,
>
> Jane Read wrote:
>> Huh? Sorry, maybe I misread your email, but you can't have an
>> *optional*
>> authority. You're either following an authority list or you aren't -
>> there is no middle course.
>>
> Well, those are two options, therefore the authority is optional. (It
> just
> depends on what stage of the process of using a metadata schema you are
> talking about: creating the application profile or filling in the
> records.)
>
>> I don't actually understand the purpose of 9.4 Keyword. If the taxon
>> goes in 9.2.2, why bother putting 9.4 in at all?
> I guess the assumption was that the taxonpath would be used as a
> browse tree
> and the keywords used to aid searching (and association between
> resources at
> the ends of the browse tree--e.g. a "find similar resources by keyword"
> function). As Sarah suggested a while back, it may be over-fiddly to
> separate
> the two, which is one of the reasons why I agree with Scott that it
> would be a
> good idea to get some use cases for sourced keywords--perhaps 9.2 is
> all we need?
>
>
>> I suppose you could put
>> alternative words which aren't used in that vocabulary ('non-preferred
>> terms' is the technical librarianic word for these) in 9.4,
>
> Nah, like you say below, that really is something best done on the
> repository
> / portal side.
>
> Phil.
>
>> but it's a
>> lot of extra work adding them to each individual record. If you want
>> to
>> have an index with cross-references or allow searching on synonyms of
>> controlled terms it would make more sense to hold the information in a
>> separate file (library systems call these 'authority files'). Of
>> course,
>> that means when someone else harvests your records they won't get the
>> cross-reference information, but is their happiness really worth the
>> extra effort of typing the information in over and over again? If
>> you've
>> told them where you got the classification from they can replicate it
>> themselves anyway.
>>
>> Jane
>>
>
> --
> Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
> ICBL, School of Mathematics and Computer Science
> Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> Tel: work - 0131 451 3278 home - 0131 221 1352
> Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
>
>
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Assistant Director, CETIS
University of Strathclyde
+44 (0)141 548 3072
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
|