Appologies to Lorna for not forwarding this earlier ... I didn't realise it
hadn't got through to the list as she intended.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: UKCMF
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:27:58 -0500
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Apologies for the delay in replying, I'm currently at a conference in
Manchester and have just got access to my e-mail for the first time this
I've glad you found the X4L/Jorum workshop useful. I know that Phil has
already posted a copy of the UKCMF to the Metadata SIG home page and you
can also find it on the Jorum+ website at
Regarding the status of the document I would advise all X4L projects to
consider this application profile stable enough for implementation. While
we are seeking feedback on the UKCMF, and would encourage all those with an
interest in metadata to forward comments to either Gerry Graham
([log in to unmask]) or myself ([log in to unmask]), I would not
envisage that our advice to the X4L projects will change radically over the
duration of the programme. We will shortly be releasing a more general
version of the UKCMF which will not include the specific advice for the X4L
Programme. We may revise this general draft on the basis of feedback but
we will attempt to minimise any changes to the X4L version.
In terms of contentious issues the main one that has already arisen is the
recommendation that X4L projects use Dewey as their basic subject
classification scheme. (Remember that multiple classifications are allowed
and other additional discipline specific sclassification schemes may also
be used e.g MESH.) We are aware that Dewey is not ideal, however it is
already widely used in UK educational contexts and there are few viable
alternatives other than the learndirect Classification Scheme.
Unfortunately developing a new generic subject classification scheme is way
beyond the scope of the X4L Programme. So in order to be pragmatic about
this we will stick with our recommendation to use the top two levels of
Dewey for basic subject classification.
If you require further clarification on these issues please feel free to
contact me. I will be out of the office for the next two weeks but will
hopefully have periodic access to my e-mail.
(Phil I don't know if this mail will reach the Metadata SIG list as it'd
coming form my unix address, if it bounces back could you resend it for me
Many thanks to everyone at the workshop yesterday in Manchester - it
certainly helped clarify many of the things I'd been worrying about!
The UKCMF sounds to be exactly what I'm after so it would be really handy to
know what the possible time scales involved with the document will be, so
that I can plan ahead with the remaining development on our project.
When would you estimate that the document will move on from draft status,
and would it be wise for me to begin implementing it whilst it was still in
the draft stage? I'm guessing that some of the elements chosen might be
more contentious (and possibly more likely to change during the debating
phase) than others - would the draft document highlight these elements?
Many thanks in advance :-)
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
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