JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-EDUCATION Archives


DC-EDUCATION Archives

DC-EDUCATION Archives


DC-EDUCATION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-EDUCATION Home

DC-EDUCATION Home

DC-EDUCATION  December 2009

DC-EDUCATION December 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Modularity and terminology

From:

Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Pete Johnston <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:12:50 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)

Hi Sarah,

Just breaking this topic out into a separate thread for a second:

> OK, in my mind, following on from discussion so far, I can see three
> separate issues emergent for the question of the Learning Resource
> Class.
> 
> 1. Do we need to define a Learning Resource Class at all and if we do
> what are the implications?
> - I have come round to the idea that anything anyone describes using
> one or more DC-Ed AP properties could be defined as a "learning
> resource" (although not necessarily a resource purposed *intentionally*
> as a learning resource).
> - However, my question is a technical one stemming from my own
> rudimentary understanding of what an application profile is, how an
> "application profile module" relates to this, and what a "metadata
> record" is (I put the latter in quotes as a I am aware that this
> concept is getting more fuzzy than old library thinking would have it).
> It's this: if we are essentially just saying that, in Irvin's use case
> for example, we want to support having a metadata record for a given
> resource that includes some educational properties, and if, to use our
> DC-Ed AP we *have* to then assign that resource the class "learning
> resource" - what happens to the resource's original resource class?
> Can a resource simultaneously have 2 resource classes?  Remember we are
> not creating a whole new and separate metadata "record".  I genuinely
> don't know the answer and am asking if someone can clarify for me.  To
> clarify my thinking- I was wondering (and I know this question isn't
> solved itself) what would happen if one were using an accessibility AP
> module to add some metadata about the accessibility properties of a
> resource.  Clearly this doesn't make the resource "an accessibility
> resource" - so how, within the DCAM / Singapore Framework would that be
> handled?  Why is this different?

I think we need to be very careful with this notion of "application profile module". I'm sensing a tendency to use the term as if it is a well-defined part of the formalisms defined by DCMI, and even already successfully used in other contexts. 

But that isn't the case at all. 

Neither the Singapore Framework document [1] nor the draft Description Set Profile spec [2] make any reference to that notion. In particular, with the current draft of the DSP document, I think there has been a conscious effort to keep the model as simple as possible, while at the same time supporting some useful basic functionality. 

So in the current DSP draft there is no attempt to provide for a modular approach - there's no "import" or "include" mechanism defined, for example - because specifying such things can quickly get pretty complicated (How do I "merge" data in the imported entity with existing data in the importing entity? How do I deal with overlaps/contradictions? etc etc etc)

So a DSP as currently defined is essentially a "stand-alone" entity which describes a (single) "complete" set of constraints on a DC description set. The fact that two DSPs might have some subset of constraints in common is irrelevant as far as the spec is concerned.

So, I think the short answer to your question "how, within the DCAM / Singapore Framework would [DCAP/DSP modularity] be handled?" is that the specs as they stand right now do not provide an answer to that question.

Which is not to say that we can't try to work through some of these questions within what _is_ provided by the _existing_ framework.

To avoid getting hung up on the "DCAP module" (or "DSP module") thing, I tend to think of what this initiative is doing is _not_ developing a DCAP/DSP, but rather developing a set of guidelines/recommendations for what the creators of _other_ DCAPs/DSPs might include when creating DCAPs/DSPs dealing with learning resources (or with educational characteristics of resources, or however you want to phrase it!). 

And this may extend to this initiative defining appropriate terms if required, and providing statement templates (and maybe description templates) that can be copied by DSP creators.

Maybe this is hair-splitting on my part (surely not...), and it's not so far from what you are thinking anyway. But I feel it needs to be said, as I get nervous when I see this use of terms like "AP module" as if they are well-defined and part of a formal framework.

Pete

[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/01/14/singapore-framework/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/03/31/dc-dsp/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2021
May 2021
April 2021
February 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
August 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
November 2011
October 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
July 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
January 2006
December 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
December 2004
November 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
June 2003
April 2003
January 2003
November 2002
October 2002
June 2002
February 2002
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
June 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager