I am seeking some advice on the format for values in the field DC.Type in
the context of how this interrelates with searching software.
I am currently contributing to the development of a standard for metadata
for EdNA (http://www.edna.edu.au). At the end of this message are some
values we are considering for an EdNA scheme for this field. We also find
the list at http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/Metadata/DC-ObjectTypes.html useful,
although too detailed for us in some areas.
One concern I have with the Knight / Hamilton format is that by running
words together, it may reduce the chance of matches for searchers who do
not know about particular schemes. For example, would searching for
'thesis' find 'MastersThesis' ? This presumably depends on the design of
the search software. Other format options for a scheme would be:
1) 'Thesis.Masters'
2) 'Masters Thesis'
1) would work best if search terms were treated as stems (ie 'thesis' is
taken as 'thesis*')
2) would work well in matching a search on 'thesis' but would work in
finding only masters theses only if the search facility distinguished
'masters thesis' as a unit and not two separate search terms.
I would very much appreciate some comments from members of these lists.
Thanks
Jack Gilding
First cut list of EdNA values for a scheme for the field DC.Type
==============================================
organisation
orgunit
organisation.educational
organisation.parent
organisation.professional
individual
school.primary
school.secondary
vetprovider
aceprovider
university
project.research
project.curriculum
project.teachers
project.students
event
links
report
forum
forum.archive
message
course.offering
syllabus
curriculum
end =============================================================
Jack Gilding ph: (03)9628-4652
Project Manager, VET EdNA Project fax: (03)9628-2472
Communications & Multimedia Unit [log in to unmask]
OTFE, PO Box 266D Melbourne VIC 3001 http://www.edna.edu.au/vetwp/
(level 4 Rialto Sth Tower 525 Collins Street Melbourne Australia)
|