Hello all, especially Rachel, Boon and Aida,
I'm enjoying following your discussion following on from Rachel's question.
I had never thought of Dewey in the terms that Aida is putting forward. I
don't want to interrupt or stop this discussion, but would like to make a
couple of comments which stem directly from Rachels questions.
1. Context: yes, the single value of Higher education isn't much use when
all your audience is assumed to be in HE. On the other hand it is useful if
your records get into wider circulation (you never know who will be looking
at your catalogue/resource description, or what might happen in the long
term to that catalogue/description). It doesn't cost much to have your
system put in context="Higher Education" as a default.
The next step, as I see it, is to provide so guidence to our HE/FE users on
context within the F/HE system the resource lives. This means agreeing
(hopefully across F/HE) on what divisions we want. I can send a seperate
discussion on this if anyone is interested.
The important point is that to maximise the potential for interoperability
we should use both the LOM term "Higher Education" and any new term we
decide on for ourselves.
2. Educational Level Classification: Boon's second option (if using a
single value is a problem then use several) is the one to go for.
3. Discipline Classification: Please use a system that works for Medics in
*addition* to Dewey. The idea again to maximise the potential of the
resources you create to be used as widely as possible. [If anyone thinks
that a system other than Dewey might be a more popular choice, then now
would be a good time to say so, but if 40% of people think Dewey is the one
to go with and the other 60% are split evenly between six other choices,
then it'll have to be Dewey].
Phil.
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Advisor
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/
|