 |
 |
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 >