Thanks for this Andy, this was exactly the reply I was hoping for to
clarify matters (although I'm also hoping to get a few more "what we're
doing in practice" replies off-list- I've had two already).
My situation is that I'm finalising application profile and other
requirements for our repository providers, and I need to know what to
tell the repository developers to do. You're correct that, once decided,
it won't mean any extra work- but we DO already have about 100 LOs in
the repository with their OAI identifiers in the LOM 1.1 field. I would
like to make the correct decision now; I'm leaving once the project
becomes a service after August, and I'd like to leave everything as
solid and well-grounded as possible for my successor who won't have much
time for the repository.
Thanks again.
Sarah
Andy Powell wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Sarah Currier wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> So sorry to bring up the dreaded topic of identifiers again, but we
>> are presently deciding whether to just use an identifier for our LOs
>> (LOM element 1.1) or to also use an identifier for the metadata
>> record as well (LOM element 3.1) as well. If we are going to conform
>> to the UK LOM Core we must have both, and I understand why
>> theoretically both are needed. But I'm not sure on a practical level
>> whether both are needed at this point in history, with the absence of
>> truly globally unique identifiers for LOs. I've seen a few
>> application profiles which suggest that metadata record identifiers
>> are optional (presumably so that imported records can be
>> accommodated?) rather than mandatory.
>>
>> At the moment our repository is automatically generating an
>> identifier for the LO for LOM element 1.1, which I'm told may be used
>> for OAI harvesting of our records. If this is the case I'm not sure
>> whether we also need a metadata record identifier in 3.1.
>
>
> That doesn't sound quite right to me. The identifier used in the OAI
> protocol is an identifier for what the protocol calls the 'item',
> which normally corresponds to the metadata record (or more properly,
> to the set of metadata records that the repository is able to expose
> about the LO).
>
> In terms of the OAI protocol, the identifier for the object itself
> (the LO) is different.
>
> So, LOM 3.1 corresponds to the OAI item identifier and LOM 1.1 is the
> identifier of the LO. And the two identifiers should be different.
>
> As to your real question... which I think is "do I really need to
> record the metadata identifier in 3.1?", I don't know. To a certain
> extent, the answer will be driven by your own functional
> requirements. My somewhat simplistic answer would be that your
> repository should be managing these things for you anyway, and
> therefore there should be no actual cost to you (in terms of effort)
> to add them to the metadata! But I appreciate that that may not
> actually be the case in practice.
>
> 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/
>
>
--
*******************************************
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
*******************************************
|