 |
 |
Hi Stuart, Re item 2(c), "IEEE LOM properties in DC descriptions", the work of the DCMI/IEEE LTSC Task Force is directly relevant, especially (i) the draft mapping of IEEE LOM data elements (the IEEE LOM standard doesn't define/describe properties) and their associated datatypes and vocabularies to a set of properties, classes, vocabulary encoding schemes and syntax encoding schemes: http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/LomDCAMAnalysis (ii) the draft set of definitions for the set of properties, classes, vocabulary encoding schemes and syntax encoding schemes required by (i) but which are not already available in DCMI-owned/other term sets: http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/LomTerms And terms from that set could, of course, also be used in the DC Education DCAP. And conversely the requirements of the DC Education DCAP may shape the approach to defining those terms taken by the Task Force. It would seem unfortunate if two parallel efforts worked towards generating parallel sets of terms to meet the same or very similar functional requirements. So I wondered whether it may be worth considering scheduling the report from the Task Force to the WG - we'll make sure it is brief and to the point! ;-) - before item 2(c) (e.g. switch the order of items 2 and 3?), so that the Task Force work, particularly the work on defining those terms, is already "on the table" for the discussion of item 2(c). Cheers Pete