 |
 |
tor 2008-12-04 klockan 18:40 +0000 skrev Pete Johnston: > Hi Mikael, > > > Could you consider importing the term definitions into the > > IEEE template? Just use the attached file. > > I'm just working through doing that now.... > > One quick question: in > > http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/LomDCAMAnalysi > s > > the mappping for 2.1 Version indicated a requirement for a class > lom:Version (which would be the range of the lom:version property), and > that's how that property is described currently in > > http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/LomTerms > > In the new PDF version, the mapping (correctly, I think) uses a > LangString. > > So I think that means the range of the lom:version property should be > lom:LangString and we don't need the lom:Version class? > > Is that right please? > > Alternatively, I guess we _could_ still have a resource of type > lom:Version as the value, with the same value strings, but that would > seem slightly inconsistent with other cases like > lom:installationRemarks, lom:otherPlatformRequirements. It *is* inconsistent. Necessarily so. Compare Coverage, where the value is, for example, a Jurisdiction, but described by value strings picked from a LangString. Same with Rights.Description - the value is a RightsStatement with value strings picked from a LangString. I've tried to think about whether the value is naturally a language object or something else. Version is somewhere in between, but I think about it as something else than just a natural language thing (I'm thinking it can be given codenames, release dates, etc etc, which an "otherplatformrequirements" cannot be). Maybe lom:Version is even a frbr:Expression? :-P /Mikael > > Thanks > > Pete > -- <[log in to unmask]> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose