fre 2008-12-05 klockan 10:03 +1100 skrev Flack, Irvin:
> I agree the relationship is different: in 9.4 the Keyword is not
> describing the Classification. I'd say its relationship to
> Classification is like that of Taxonpath to the Classification, except
> that in the case of 9.4:Keyword it's not part of a formal classification
> system. The same distinction would then have to apply to 9.3:Description
> and 1.4:Description, wouldn't it?

I brought this question up on a IEEE LOM call today, and got the
response that

9.2 Taxon Path
9.3 Description, and
9.4 Keyword

are more or less equivalent, semantically, which confirms your and
Pete's analysis. The relation is slightly different from 1.5 Keyword, as
the 9.4 keyword is intended to be applied to the Learning object, "by
proxy". 

However, as the "Classification" resource actually exists for the sole
purpose of linking a Learning Object with a classification, maybe it
works anyway? Isn't a description of a classification still appropriate,
given the definition of the Classification resource? 

/Mikael



> 
> One other comment on 9.3:Description: its multiplicity should be 1, not
> repeated.
> 
> Irvin
> 
> Irvin Flack
> Metadata Librarian
> Centre for Learning Innovation
> NSW Department of Education and Training
> 
> Pete Johnston wrote:
> 
> > ...I wondered about the use of the
> > lom:keyword property in two different contexts.
> 
> > i.e. for 1.5 General.Keyword the relationship is between the
> > Learning Object and the keyword-as-LangString, and for 9.4
> > Classification.Keyword the relationship is between a "Classification"
> > and the keyword-as-LangString. 
> 
> > I suppose it all depends on what relationship we are indicating using
> > the property.
> 
> > For 1.5, the LOM standard says the keyword is "A keyword or phrase
> > describing the topic of this learning object"
> 
> > But for 9.4, where we model the "Classification" as a distinct
> resource,
> > is that the same relationship? I'm not sure. It seems maybe closer to
> a
> > "name" or "label" in this case?
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
> privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
> are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
> **********************************************************************
> 
-- 
<[log in to unmask]>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose