ons 2008-12-03 klockan 17:09 +0000 skrev Pete Johnston:
> I've made another pass over the example on the wiki
> 
> http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/Examples
> 
> and I _think_ it's now consistent with your document (with the exception
> of one aspect discussed below) - though I probably need to check it
> again!

Wonderful!

Could you consider importing the term definitions into the IEEE
template? Just use the attached file. 

> 
> I noticed a couple of very minor glitches in the mapping doc:
> 
> 1. In the mapping of 1.8 Aggregation level, the target property is
> listed as lom:structure. I think that's a typo and it should be
> lom:aggregationLevel

Thanks...

> 
> 2. In the mapping of 4.1 Technical.Format, dcterms:IMT is used as a
> Syntax Encoding Scheme, but DCMI describes it as a Vocabulary Encoding
> Scheme  


Ah, indeed.

> 
> The aspect where the form of the example currently differs slightly is
> really an issue of "convention", I think. 

Right. Exactly what form the spec should recommend is completely open
for discussion. 

We have the option of using "should" for the URI, "may" for the rest,
which could be a solution?

/Mikael

> 
> I think the document is recommending what I'll call a "terse" approach
> to representing LOM Vocabulary Values i.e. the use of a LOM Vocabulary
> Value is mapped to constructs like
> 
>   Description (
>     ResourceId ( classification1 )
>     Statement (
>       PropertyURI ( lom:purpose )
>       ValueURI ( lomvoc:Purpose-discipline )
>     )
>   )
> 
> i.e. with just a Value URI provided. 
> 
> In my initial cut at the example, I took a more "verbose" approach
> (which I've left in the wiki page for now), and also included a
> Vocabulary Encoding Scheme URI and a separate description of the value,
> following the same conventions proposed for the "no URI known" case in
> the introduction, e.g.
> 
>   Description (
>     ResourceId ( classification1 )
>     Statement (
>       PropertyURI ( lom:purpose )
>       ValueURI ( lomvoc:Purpose-discipline )
>       VocabularyEncodingSchemeURI ( lomvoc:Purpose )
>     )
>   )
> 
>   Description (
>     ResourceURI ( lomvoc:Purpose-discipline )
>     Statement (
>       PropertyURI ( lom:source )
>       LiteralValueString ( "LOMv1.0" )
>     )
>     Statement (
>       PropertyURI ( lom:value )
>       LiteralValueString ( "discipline" )
>     )
>   )
> 
> I appreciate that that additional information should be available to an
> app by dereferencing the Value URI. I just wondered whether embedding it
> was more "symmetrical" with the "no URI known" case, where obviously
> there's no URI to be dereferenced to get/GET the additional data so it
> has to be included.
> 
> I really don't feel strongly about it one way or the other - just wanted
> to note the difference and check whether this was the intention! :-)
> 
> Pete
> 
> ---
> Pete Johnston
> Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
> [log in to unmask] 
> +44 (0)1225 474323
> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/ 
> 
-- 
<[log in to unmask]>

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose