Hello Sarah, hope you're having a wonderful summer. Many thanks to you
and your colleagues for sharing this, I have a few comments on the
details of the documents, but first a couple of more general observations.
Firstly, I think one of the previous comments or replies mentioned that
this isn't really an application profile as we know it. Indeed, you make
this point yourself in the document, but if you call something a "thin"
duck and then explain that it doesn't walk like a duck or quack like a
duck then you're probably going to have difficulty communicating what
the thing really is. I found it useful to think of it as a "partial
profile", in other words a set of elements useful for profiles in a
particular context.
Secondly, I think I agree with Andy's comments about the need for an
entity relationship model to support this work. Not (only) because of
any distinction between what we might want to say about
works/expressions/manifestations/items, but because there are a whole
load of other entities implied in the description: learners,
qualifications, "contexts" , and I think it would help clarify
discussion on some elements if we could what they applied to. I think
your discussion of LOM 5.11 education.language is the simplest case
where an entity-relation model that included the learner would help
[language of the resource is not the same as language of the learner
even if it is described by the same DC element], subject is another, see
below.
Now the minutiae ...
In Functional requirements you say
"b. Support for Educational Use of Resources
The DC-Ed AP must support those interested in teaching and learning
(primarily educational practitioners but possibly others) in determining
a resource's potential for use within a given educational setting."
Is it really the intention to concentrate so specifically on the needs
of teachers (if that is what you mean by educational practitioners) not
learners or parents? it seems a strange limitation in scope for work at
this level. What are the consequences of this?
In the intro, you say
"The exception to the focus on educational properties is for Subject and
Type, where the AP intends to suggest vocabularies of specific use for
educational materials." which struck me as odd at first. Then I read the
element definition table where you suggest subject might describe "A
reference to a standard for curriculum, competency or learning objective
to which the resource conforms." So LOM 9 Classification with 9.1
Classification.Purpose = educational objective and 9.1
Classification.Purpose = competency would be relevant. I'm inclined to
think that this is different to (or perhaps a significant refinement of)
subject. Seems like DC:relation with conformsTo refinement is better
place for references to such standards. Which makes me think that this
is one of the cases where an entity relationship model might be useful:
your not describing the resource per se, you're describing the course
the student might be on -- that relationship, not the subject attribute,
is education specific.
Still on the subject row in that table, the wording "DC-Ed AP to
recommend vocabularies in use within educational metadata, e.g. Joint
Academic Coding System (JACS) in the UK." could be taken to mean that
DCMI will recommend that if you're in UK HE then you should use JACS,
which is probably not what you mean. It might be better to say "e.g. the
UK HE Joint Aca...(JACS)"
In the vocab listings:
For LTSN Pedagogic terms you give the LTSN resource type vocabulary,
which is a bit confusing since there was an LTSN pedagogy vocabulary,
which is now the HE Academy pedagogy vocabulary available at
http://www.connect.ac.uk/ixbin/hixltp?_IXACTION_=file&_IXFILE_=templates%2Fvocab%2Ftop.html&_IXthes=Pedagogy
For the row heading of TLTP vocabularies you talk about the TLRP vocabs.
[and if these came directly from the CETIS pedagogy vocabularies report
then I'm deeply embarrassed about not spotting them then.]
Hope this helps, Phil.
ps. the notes I made as I went along are available at
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16007482002381607562/BDQTGQgoQtpbh88Ui?hl=en
<http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16007482002381607562/BDQTGQgoQtpbh88Ui?hl=en>
which has a little more detail in places.
Sarah Currier wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The Dublin Core Conference 2007 in Singapore is fast approaching. The
> next face-to-face meeting of the DC-Ed Community will take place there.
>
> Diane Hillmann, Stuart Sutton and I have been working hard to get
> draft materials related to the proposed DC-Ed Application Profile
> ready for this meeting. We would like to disseminate the results of
> this work prior to the meeting so that anyone who can't attend can
> give feedback and input. We'd be very grateful if you could spend
> some time having a look and feeding back to us. Discussion on this
> list is particularly welcome. If you only have time to look at the
> areas that particularly interest you, that's fine! I have tried to
> delineate the different areas we'd like feedback on below, to make it
> easier for you.
>
> We now have a wiki page linking to a new draft Application Profile
> document:
> http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Working_20Draft_20of_20DC_2dEd_20Application_20Profile
>
> --
> Sarah Currier
> Co-Moderator, Dublin Core Education Community
>
> Product Manager, Intrallect Ltd.
> http://www.intrallect.com
>
> 2nd Floor, Regent House
> Blackness Road
> Linlithgow
> EH49 7HU
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 870 234 3933 Mob: +44 (0)7980855801
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> --
>
> --
> Sarah Currier
> Product Manager, Intrallect Ltd.
> http://www.intrallect.com
>
> 2nd Floor, Regent House
> Blackness Road
> Linlithgow
> EH49 7HU
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 870 234 3933 Mob: +44 (0)7980855801
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> --
|