Dear meta2ers
I am resending this message as I have received no responses to my earlier
post and believe it raises some important general questions about how we
format the content of recommended values in DC schemes so that they perform
the role of defined values for controlled vocabulary searches but still
meet the wider DC objective that the contents are useful even if users do
not know about specific schemes. I need to make a recommendation on the
EdNA scheme for the DC.TYPE field in the next week and would value some
comments - especially from list members who may have insights into the way
search engines vendors are likely to implement searching on metadata.
Thanks
Jack Gilding
================ resent message ================
>Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 18:54:57 +1000
>To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>From: Jack Gilding <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: DC.TYPE - format in relation to searches
>
>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)
|