 |
 |
Just to clarify, is there no public access to the Framework document? Carolyn Guinchard Digital Librarian Digital Design and Production Division Planning and Standards Sector Alberta Education -----Original Message----- From: The JISC CETIS MDR Special Interest Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:54 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: ISO Metadata for Learning Resources Phil, This topic has come up on the DCMI Advisory Board list (which is closed) and I've put forward some brief views, which I'll repeat here (partly to get them out into the open and make them more challengable): --- cut --- The document is 75 pages long. I therefore don't have time to comment on it properly. I don't believe there is any reason (apart the 'designed by committee' one) for this document to be this long. I did a quick scan. The document does *not* cite (or even mention) the DCMI Abstract Model. Neither does it cite RDF. Given that this is supposed to be a Framework, I can only conclude that neither of these things is treated seriously by it. The only reference to DCMI seems to be to the "Dublin Core elements" and the "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set". I think there is a real danger that the document therefore adopts a rather dated view of what DC is. The only reference to RDF is as a "binding". Again, this shows a complete mis-understanding of what RDF is (RDF is a model not a syntax) and probably calls into question the whole interpretation of what is meant by framework here. Section 6 refers to 'data elements' and 'data element specifications'. To quote a snippet here (I hope that's OK?), "A data element specification consists of an identifier (for the data element specification) and a (defined) list of data element attributes with rules for the values of those attributes." As far as I can tell, these bear no relation to anything in DCMI or RDF? W.r.t. the identifier part of this, there is no reference to the URI spec (which is a core part of both RDF and the DCMI Abstract Model). Instead, it says, "An identifier usually is a linguistically independent sequence of characters capable of unique and permanent identification." My reading of section 7 suggests that these are not RDF triples, but since there is no reference to the RDF spec I guess it is impossible to say categorically either way. It does explicitly say that a data element is, "a 3 or 4 part entity" at least one of which is not a triple! :-) but I agree that these things are almost certainly mappable to RDF - my point is that "mapping to RDF" and "being RDF" are different (as we have found with the DCAM, somewhat to our cost). Clearly, these comments are based on a very quick scan of the document. I apologise if I missed something or if I have wrongly interpreted the document but I see little or no evidence of any real engagement with either the RDF model or with Dublin Core (beyond DC as a 'set of elements'). --- cut --- I appreciate that most people will not have access to the document, and therefore won't be in any position to agree or disagree with my comments here but if anyone does and wants to disagree with me, please do so. As I say at the top, the document is long enough that commenting properly on it in any detail requires more time than I have available. Unfortunately, my initial reading of it isn't supportive of finding any more time. The real problem with MLR is that the process is so closed that it is almost impossible to engage with it in any meaningful sense. My personal view is that the community is not helped by supporting this kind of closed activity. Sorry to be blunt but these are supposed to be 'open' standards right? :-( Andy ________________________________ Andy Powell Research Programme Director Eduserv [log in to unmask] 01225 474319 / 07989 476710 www.eduserv.org.uk efoundations.typepad.com twitter.com/andypowe11 > -----Original Message----- > From: The JISC CETIS MDR Special Interest Group [mailto:CETIS- > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Phil Barker > Sent: 03 December 2009 12:27 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: ISO Metadata for Learning Resources > > Hello all, > The final committee draft of ISO Metadata for Learning Resources, Part > 1: Framework is being presented to bodies such as the BSI for a ballot > to decide on whether it should proceed to the next stage of > standardization. The role of this part of the standard is to define > how > other parts of ISO MLR should define the attributes and permitted use > of > data elements; the aim is that it should be compatible with the LOM and > semantic approaches to metadata such the Dublin Core Abstract Model > (i.e. RDF). CETIS are hoping to collate a view from UK further and > higher education to pass on to the BSI in the hope of informing their > vote. For more details see > http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/philb/2009/12/03/views-on-mlr/ > > > Liddy Nevile is also interested in view from those involved in the DC > education community, see > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0912&L=DC- > EDUCATION&P=58 > > > Phil. > > -- > Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser > ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences > Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, > Edinburgh, EH14 4AS > Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327 > Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/ > > > > -- > Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity > registered under charity number SC000278. This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.