 |
 |
FUN?!! Thanks for the clarification about 9.4, Lorna; that does help. So if you wanted to, you could use 9.4 in conjunction with 9.1 to provide uncontrolled keywords for idea, educational level...? It says 'use 1.5 for uncontrolled keywords relating to discipline' - why so? To me, seeing a piece of coding that had a 9.2 and a 9.4 hanging off the same 9.1 would imply that the word(s) in 9.4 had been taken from the same scheme as the taxon in 9.2. Could we have a sentence added to the guidelines for 9.2 to make it clear that the information about the source of the taxon only applies to the entry in that element? Also (maybe it's just me) the wording of the explanation for 9.4 is a bit ambiguous; it says "These are the keywords and phrases descriptive of the learning object relative to the stated 9.1:Classification.Purpose *of this specific classification*, such as accessibility, security level, etc., most relevant first" (my emphasis), which suggested to me that you could only use keywords that had come from a controlled vocabulary. On the subject of workflow, I agree that the UK LOM Core shouldn't be dictating who is responsible for different parts of the record but I don't see why you can't *recommend* particular approaches, and in the case of identifiers it is so important to ensure they aren't duplicated that I think you should recommend that they are assigned automatically. HTH - have a good weekend, everyone Jane Jane Read Cataloguing Officer +44 (0)1904 717500 ext. 2403 The Higher Education Academy Innovation Way York Science Park Heslington YORK YO10 5DQ -----Original Message----- From: The CETIS Metadata Special Interest Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lorna Campbell Sent: 18 March 2005 15:04 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Question re Keywords in the LOM: what are folk doing? Hi there, I've finally got round to reading my way through this post. I was busy planning the CodeBash while you guys were having fun with keywords! :-) I think almost all the points I would have made have been raised at some stage by other people so I don't think there's much I can really add to the debate. For the record though: 1. I agree that having two keyword elements in the LOM is desperately confusing. 2. I agree that it could be useful to be able to specify the source of keywords in these elements. 3. I agree that the keywords in 9.4 do not need to come from the classification scheme identified in 9.2.1. 4. My understanding of 9.4 is that it is designed to enable the addition of keywords (which may or may not be from a controlled vocabulary of some kind) according to purpose. So for example if the vocabulary term you select for 9.1 is "discipline" then the keywords would relate to the "discipline" of the resource, but need not necessarily come from the "discipline" taxonomy identified in 9.2.1. Alternatively if the purpose of 9.1 is "accessibility" then the keywords would also describe the "accessibility" of the resource. (I'm sure I don't need to encourage you to respond if you disagree with these assumptions, although I suspect you may all already have had enough fo this debate!) 5. In terms of whether or no the UK LOM Core should dictate metadata workflow, I'm inclined to agree with Phil and Sarah that it should not. I'm happy to amend the guidelines for 1.5 accordingly but if I do this, for the sake of consistency, I will also have to amend several other guidelines, such as 1.1.2 General.Identifier.Entry which currently reads: "The actual value of the identifier. This value should be generated by the application whenever possible." Are list members happy with this?