Peter, I agree with you totally that the distinction will on occasion
blur between Intermediary and Beneficiary ... they may well be the
same on numerous occasions.
My comments about developing a _general_ vocabulary or
vocabularies comes from my sense that different practice
communities, national bodies etc. may well have specific
formal vocabularies. In fact, I know that they do! I fear that
for DC-Ed to attempt to develop a vocabulary that really
meets diverse needs is unrealistic. Personally, I'd prefer
to see high-level DC vocabularies to which registries could
map more specific, community-based vocabularies.
Stuart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Stuart A. Sutton (206) 685-6618 (V)
University of Washington (206) 616-3152 (F)
School of Library and Information Science
Box 352930
Seattle, WA 98195-2930 [log in to unmask]
GEM http://geminfo.org (Project)
http://www.TheGateway.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Batchelor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 2:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: audience
The controlled vocabulary will need to be fairly specific, as the
distinction between Intermediary and Beneficiary will often blur. There are
times when "teachers" could also be classified as "students" - I'm
particularly thinking about teachers using professional development
materials online.
I think Stuart's idea of developing a single vocabulary to use with both
qualifiers is worth exploring...
Peter
>DCEd.Audience.[Intermediary]<==controlled vocabulary
>DCEd.Audience.[Beneficiary]<==controlled vocabulary
>
>This will allow us (here online and in Melbourne) to discuss
>the merits of:
>
>1) An auxiliary "audience" element (which could, without
>qualification, support appropriate schemes);
>
>2) Audience element qualifiers (here, "Intermediary" and
>"Beneficiary" (regardless of what we actually name the
>concepts in the end)); and
>
>3) Possible DCEd-proposed value qualifiers (i.e., schemes).
>At this point in time, I personally am not prepared to suggest that
>DC-Education come up with controlled vocabularies (value
>qualifiers). While we might try later for very general vocabularies
>(or even a single vocabulary for use with both qualifiers), it is also
>highly possible that specific practice communities, national bodies,
>etc. will have their own formal "schemes" that need to be recognized
>and expressable in DC metadata.
>
>Stuart
Peter Batchelor
Senior Web Developer
MelbourneIT
Mobile: 0411 054 014
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|