I want to emphasize a point we discussed in Katteminga...
Just because the DC community does not endorse a particular element or
qualifier does NOT mean that others might not find it useful, or that it
should not be used.
It is important to distinguish among the following classes of metadata
elements:
a. DC-Interoperability elements/qualifiers:
Entities that are judged to be widely useful
across disciplines... they are Core entities.
b. DC-Domain elements/qualifiers
Entities that are judged to be useful within a domain,
but perhaps not across domains
c. Local elements/qualifiers
Entities that are intended to be useful for local
applications or in a constrained federation of applications,
but perhaps not even widely in a given domain.
Pedagogy strikes me as belonging in the last category, for the following
reasons:
1. there are no agreements in place about standard vocabularies
2. the categorization is heavily value-laden (that is, your judgement
about what terms would apply to a given resource will depend on your
philosophical attachments)
3. there is perhaps little agreement across cultures about what the
values would be
None of this precludes the use of a pedagogy element in a local (or
regional) setting, but rather simply mitigates the probability that it will
be widely adopted.
One last point... We imagine that entities can be promoted from one category
to another... if something works well and turns out to be adopted widely, it
can be bumped up on the interoperability scale.
stu
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Sutton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:17 AM
To: 'Liddy Nevile'; Andrew McNaughton
Cc: Stuart Sutton; DC-Education (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Use of Comments v DC.Pedagogy, etc.
Andrew, I, too, agree that sharing/cooperating in the development
of value sets where ever possible will increase the likelihood of
interoperability immensly. There will be instances where such
cooperation may not be possible because of national etc.
differences; however, even there, registry services could handle
cross mappings etc.
Stuart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Stuart A. Sutton (206) 685-6618 (V)
University of Washington (206) 616-3152 (F)
School of Library and Information Science
Box 352930
Seattle, WA 98195-2930 [log in to unmask]
GEM http://geminfo.org (Project)
http://www.TheGateway.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 4:12 AM
To: Andrew McNaughton
Cc: Stuart Sutton; DC-Education (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Use of Comments v DC.Pedagogy, etc.
Andrew
I was prompting you for the sort of explanation you have just given. As
interoperability is of concern, I agree with you idea that shared value sets
will be useful, if we can achieve them.
Liddy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|