Ronan, at this point, I think I am going to move the Audience.Level proposal and its draft semantics on by suggesting that the DC-Ed Working Group "recommend" it to the DC Usage Committee. ============================ --Recommended Audience Element Qualifier: "Level" --Description: "A general statement describing the education or training sector. Alternatively, a more specific statement of the location of the audience in terms of its progression through an education or training sector. Where available, such statements should be expressed in terms of a recognized national or local scheme." --Recommended Value Qualifiers (Schemes): Recognized national or local vocabularies --Examples: "Lower secondary" (U.S.; general statement) "Grades 7 & 8" (U.S.; specific statement) ============================ Ronan, I think we need to begin a discussion of how a meta-scheme to which national and local schemes might be mapped should be constructed. I have referred on several occasion's to Keith Stubbs work because he is, as far as I am aware, the furthest along looking at a mapping. However, in Keith's table, he takes as his base referent (the columns in his table) the U.S. designations as expressed in the GEM grade vocabulary (with more granular treatment of higher education). _If_ the expressions of the column labels are generally (universally?) applicable, we might see if we can express them more generally by assigning neutral labels (numbers?). Any suggestions? Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: bradtap [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 2:16 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Semantics for AudienceLevel > > > Stuart et al, > I think that Stuart's form of words is an eloquent solution. > There is, as > mentioned, also the possibility to repeat the AudienceLevel > as required. > The work being done by Keith Stubbs > http://inet.ed.gov/~kstubbs/levelofed.pdf > is most useful. When will a functioning meta-scheme by > available ? Here in > the UK there seems to be a need for something akin to this, > also I think > that at some stage a mapping would be investigated. > regards > Ronan > > Stuart Sutton writes: > > > I really must apologize for being so long away from the > thread of this > > conversation. This morning I reread the messages from Ronan, Diane > > and Jenny and thought I'd respond to the points raised by you all. > > > > (1) First, thank you, Diane, for rewording my very awkward > statement of > > the semantics. I also think that Jenny is correct in > stating that changing > > the wording from "that sector" to "a sector" resolves part of the > > difficulties > > identified by Ronan. Also, the expansion of the wording to > "an educational > > or > > training sector" also makes sense. > > > > (2) As to whether a given record might have _both_ a > general and a local > > statement (e.g., in the U.S. putting in both "Lower > Secondary" and "Grades: > > 7, 8 & 9), I see no reason why there could not be both in multiple > > occurrences > > of Audience.Level in the same record. I don't know that I > would necessarily > > > > choose to do that but can see no reason why others might > not find it useful. > > > > (3) When I made my stab at a statement, I intended the "as > expressed in a > > given national or local scheme" to apply to both the general and the > > specific. > > Of course, nothing in the DC architecture compels the use > of recognized > > schemes--nothing compels the use of specific value > qualifiers. However, we > > are all aware that usage of such schemes improves > retrieval. _If_ we use > > recognized schemes, we also make it possible to map across > them or to > > map them to some higher-level meta-scheme. In fact, > developing such a > > meta-scheme was part of the discussion in Ottawa and the > utility of such a > > mapping is illustrated by Keith Stubb's work: > > > > http://inet.ed.gov/~kstubbs/levelofed.pdf > > > > One solution would be to reword the statement of semantics > once again by > > separating the "as expressed in a given national or local > scheme," making > > it clear that it applies to both general and specific and > stating it in > > terms > > of a sort of "best practice"? Thus, the semantics might > read as follows: > > > > "A general statement describing the education or training sector. > > Alternatively, a more specific statement of the location of > the audience > > in terms of its progression through am education or training sector. > > Where available, such statements should be expressed in terms of > > a recognized national or local scheme." > > > > However, this point raises a VERY interesting question > regarding DC-Ed > > as an "application profile." In such a profile, can a DC > working group > > actually > > restrict application of DC general principles in terms of > the domain under > > consideration. In other words, can a working group decide > that "best > > practices" _dictate_ the use of scheme's or a particular scheme? > > > > Stuart > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor > > The Information School > > University of Washington > > Suite 370, Mary Gates Hall > > Box 352840 > > Seattle, WA 98195-2840 > > [log in to unmask] > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jenny Slater [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 8:36 AM > > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > Subject: Re: Semantics for AudienceLevel > > > > > > > > > Diane et al., > > > > > > The problem with the either/or aspect of the definition, can > > > be dealt with > > > if we can clarify the points which Ronan raised. I quote: > > > > > > "Could there not be both a general and a specific > statement ? If the > > > specific statement is employed how does it refer to 'that > > > sector' when the > > > general statement is not employed?" > > > > > > My own opinion is that there need only be either a general or > > > a specific > > > statement, for the AudienceLevel, and I can certainly see the > > > need for the > > > either/or aspect even though it does seem to be a bit lacking in > > > definitiveness. I think that my point is the same as yours, > > > that is, if we > > > are to be fuzzy about the definition itself, then we need to > > > be clear in > > > our wording of it. Hence my problem about which statements > > > the schemes will > > > apply to. > > > > > > As I see it, the bit about the national or local schemes > > > should apply to > > > the specific statement only, if it is possible to limit it to > > > this. This is > > > how the definition reads in your version of it, but if it is > > > meant to apply > > > to both statements, then surely we need to express this in an > > > unequivocal > > > manner in our definition? > > > > > > For the second part of Ronan's enquiry, the wording "that > > > sector" appears > > > to be the crux of the matter, and were it changed to "a > > > sector" it seems > > > that the problem would be eliminated. It could even be > expanded to "an > > > educational or training sector". There would not be a need to > > > describe the > > > sector additionally, since the sense of the sector would be > > > expressed by > > > the more specific statement. > > > > > > In fact, in the case of the collection which I am building, > > > at the moment > > > all of the resources will belong to the one general > sector, which is > > > precisely why we need a more specific statement of audience > > > level. If other > > > collections need to use both the general and the specific > > > statements, could > > > they not use the element twice? Or have I misunderstood > the meaning of > > > "Maximum Occurrence: Unlimited"? > > > (http://purl.org/dc/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm) > > > > > > Jenny > > > > > > At 09:56 13/12/00 -0500, you wrote: > > > >Jenny, et al.: > > > > > > > >Before we get to far into clarification, I think it's > important to > > > >remember that DC is by definition a collection of very > fuzzy buckets, > > > >and an either/or statement is not necessarily improper in that > > > >context. As you say, using a scheme of some sort may be possible > > > >with both kinds of statements, but using a scheme is > also a fairly > > > >generic proposition with DC. > > > > > > > >Diane > > > > > > > >>Ronan, > > > >> > > > >>I see your point about the possibility of creating two > > > separate elements. > > > >>The more I think about it, the more I think that we need a > > > definition which > > > >>does not have an "Either/Or" aspect to it. At first I > > > thought that you > > > >>might have been confusing the need to state which national > > > or local scheme > > > >>was being used to describe the progression, with the > > > statement of the > > > >>sector. They do not work as equivalents of each other, and > > > I was busy > > > >>trying to explain this, when I re-read the original > > > definition. There is > > > >>some ambiguity as to whether the "given national or local > > > scheme" applies > > > >>only to the statement of progression or to both statements. > > > It might be > > > >>possible to use an internationally agreed terminology to > > > describe the > > > >>education or training sectors, if it were simple enough. It > > > would certainly > > > >>be useful, although I'm not expert enough to know whether > > > or not it is > > > >>actually feasible. > > > >> > > > >>So Stuart, can you clarify which stament(s) you intended > > > the bit about the > > > >>national or local scheme to apply to? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>Jenny Slater > > > >> > > > >>At 11:39 13/12/00 GMT, you wrote: > > > >>>Stuart, > > > >>> > > > >>>I support your approach; the distinctions you have teased > > > out are most > > > >>>helpful. As for the wording, I think that Diane's edit > > > (copied below) > > > which > > > >>>breaks your first attempt into two sentences certainly > > > improves the sense > > > >>>It also however emphasises a point which I should like to > > > explore further. > > > >>>Does there need to be either a general statement _or_ > > > (Diane suggests > > > >>>_alternatively_) a specific statement. Could there not be > > > both a general > > > >>>and a specific statement ? If the specific statement is > > > employed how > > > does it > > > >>>refer to 'that sector' when the general statement is not > > > employed ? > > > >>>I wonder if my logic is correct here, might the element be > > > repeated - any > > > >>>views ? > > > >>> > > > >>>""A general statement describing the education or training > > > sector of the > > > >>>audience for the resource. Alternatively, a more specific > > > statement of the > > > >>>location of the audience in terms of its progression > > > through that sector as > > > >>>expressed in a given national or local scheme." > > > >>>Diane" > > > >>> > > > >>>Ronan O' Beirne > > > >>>Senior Information Officer > > > >>> > > > >>>Bradford Training Access Points > > > >>>Shipley Library, 2,Wellcroft > > > >>>Shipley, West Yorkshire > > > >>>BD18 3QH > > > >>>United Kingdom > > > >>> http://www.learn-in-bradford.co.uk > > > >>>Tel: +44 (01274) 757155 > > > >>>Fax: +44 (01274) 530247 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>Jenny Slater, FAILTE Project Officer, > > > >>LTSN Engineering, > > > >>Loughborough University, > > > >>Leicestershire, > > > >>LE11 3TU > > > >> > > > >>Tel. 01509 227 192 > > > >>E-mail: [log in to unmask] > > > >>Web page: http://failte.lboro.ac.uk > > > > > > > > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > > >Diane I. Hillmann > > > >Metadata Specialist > > > >National Science Digital Library Project at Cornell > > > >Department of Computer Science Voice: 607/255-5691 > > > >419 Rhodes Hall Fax: 607/255-4428 > > > >Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: [log in to unmask] > > > > >*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny Slater, FAILTE Project Officer, > > > LTSN Engineering, > > > Loughborough University, > > > Leicestershire, > > > LE11 3TU > > > UK > > > > > > Tel. (+44) 01509 227 192 > > > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > > > Web page: http://failte.lboro.ac.uk > > > > > > Ronan O'Beirne > Senior Information Officer > Bradford Training Access Points > Shipley Library, 2,Wellcroft > Shipley, West Yorkshire > BD18 3QH > United Kingdom > http://www.learn-in-bradford.co.uk > Tel: +44 (01274) 757155 > Fax: +44 (01274) 530247 >