 |
 |
All, I would like to see us move forward with this and at least get something in place that can be revised/improved in the future. Regards, Ben ------------------------------------------ Dr Ben Ryan MBCS Technical Director Kainao Limited Tel (Direct): +44 1484 453306 Tel (General): +44 1484 453303 Fax: +44 1484 453343 Web: http://www.kainao.com ------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: The CETIS Metadata Special Interest Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] Sent: 26 September 2005 11:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CETIS-METADATA] [UK-MEG] Results of survey about UKEL Apologies for cross posting... I agree with Andy and Phil's conclusion that we should go with the revised 14 level version of the UKEL. In addition I also feel that this has been a valuable exercise. In particular I found respondents additional comments very interesting as I think they highlight the fact that we need to make absolutely explicit what this vocabulary is and is not for. I also agree that as far as useful next steps go we should consider reviewing the mappings and agreeing definitions if possible. I'm less clear about how we should go about facilitating this though! :-} While I'm here I'd like to raise another issues relating to UKEL. I think most of you are probably aware that BSI has launched a panel with a view to standardising UK LOM Core. Do list members feel that the UKEL vocabulary should be included as part of this activity? Is it appropriate to attempt to standardise a fuzzy vocabulary of this kind? The first meeting of the panel takes place in Glasgow tomorrow so any comments would be very welcome. All the best Lorna On 23 Sep 2005, at 17:04, Andy Powell wrote: Firstly, apologies for not having followed up on our survey for quite some time! Other things have got in the way and this issue has, unfortunately, been left on the back-burner. The survey results can be seen by going to http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/surveys.cgi?A=hp&LMGT1=UK-MEG then choosing the "UK Educational Levels" concluded survey. To summarise: - most people agree that "educational level" is useful for resource discovery and that having a UK-wide list is a good thing. - the picture of what exact form that list should take is less clear. The revised 14-level list at http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/twiki/bin/view/Metadata/UKEL gets the most votes. But it gets less than 50% of the total vote. I.e. most people want to do something else, but there is no clear winner as to what should be done. Despite that... ( :-) ) it seems to me that if we accept the functional requirements outlined at the top of the revised list above, then the current 12-level list is ruled out (because it doesn't meet the requirement to cover pre-school through to doctoral degree level) - so we can ignore that part of the vote! Bear with me, I'm trying to move us forward here... :-) Going with the 14-level list does not rule out developing a simpler list in the future if we need to - so we can forget about the 'Develop something simpler' part of the vote! Ditto the 'Do something else' vote! So, it seems to me, that moving the proposed 14-level list forward is the best thing to do for the time being. In which case, we need to agree the proposed mappings in the Wiki and maybe come up with some definitions where we can. OK, so I can already hear people shouting "well, why the hell did you bother with the survey then?" :-). But I don't see what else to do... Thoughts, as always, welcome... Andy -- Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask] Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ -- Lorna M. Campbell Assistant Director, CETIS University of Strathclyde +44 (0)141 548 3072 http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ Apologies for cross posting... I agree with Andy and Phil's conclusion that we should go with the revised 14 level version of the UKEL. In addition I also feel that this has been a valuable exercise. In particular I found respondents additional comments very interesting as I think they highlight the fact that we need to make absolutely explicit what this vocabulary is and is not for. I also agree that as far as useful next steps go we should consider reviewing the mappings and agreeing definitions if possible. I'm less clear about how we should go about facilitating this though! :-} While I'm here I'd like to raise another issues relating to UKEL. I think most of you are probably aware that BSI has launched a panel with a view to standardising UK LOM Core. Do list members feel that the UKEL vocabulary should be included as part of this activity? Is it appropriate to attempt to standardise a fuzzy vocabulary of this kind? The first meeting of the panel takes place in Glasgow tomorrow so any comments would be very welcome. All the best Lorna On 23 Sep 2005, at 17:04, Andy Powell wrote: Firstly, apologies for not having followed up on our survey for quite some time! Other things have got in the way and this issue has, unfortunately, been left on the back-burner. The survey results can be seen by going to http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/surveys.cgi?A=hp&LMGT1=UK-MEG then choosing the "UK Educational Levels" concluded survey. To summarise: - most people agree that "educational level" is useful for resource discovery and that having a UK-wide list is a good thing. - the picture of what exact form that list should take is less clear. The revised 14-level list at http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/twiki/bin/view/Metadata/UKEL gets the most votes. But it gets less than 50% of the total vote. I.e. most people want to do something else, but there is no clear winner as to what should be done. Despite that... ( :-) ) it seems to me that if we accept the functional requirements outlined at the top of the revised list above, then the current 12-level list is ruled out (because it doesn't meet the requirement to cover pre-school through to doctoral degree level) - so we can ignore that part of the vote! Bear with me, I'm trying to move us forward here... :-) Going with the 14-level list does not rule out developing a simpler list in the future if we need to - so we can forget about the 'Develop something simpler' part of the vote! Ditto the 'Do something else' vote! So, it seems to me, that moving the proposed 14-level list forward is the best thing to do for the time being. In which case, we need to agree the proposed mappings in the Wiki and maybe come up with some definitions where we can. OK, so I can already hear people shouting "well, why the hell did you bother with the survey then?" :-). But I don't see what else to do... Thoughts, as always, welcome... Andy -- Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask] Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ -- Lorna M. Campbell Assistant Director, CETIS University of Strathclyde +44 (0)141 548 3072 http://www.cetis.ac.uk/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .