Hi Ed
I think what you are saying makes sense, I was looking at this as well and
puzzling over how to put the accessibility metadata into a record. This
seems to be the pupose that the 9 Classification is there to serve, but I am
not much of a librarian either! It will be a little while before I try this
out but I will let you know how I get on.
I am coming to the conclusion that I am going to try and stay within the
UKMF if at possible. Our project wants to use a pedagogical model with a
simple classification system for the resources in the object describing how
they fit into the model. Originally I thought of extending some of the
metadata elements to do this (which I think ia allowed) but the more I think
about it makes sense to try and work within the constraints of the UKMF
before adding to it - at least for our project. Later on we shall be
tangling with Learning Design - but one thing at a time.
Cheers
John
John Casey
Project Officer
Learning to Learn - an X4L Project
DAICE
Airthrey Castle
University of Stirling
Stirling
FK9 4LA
Tel: +44 (0)1786 467943
email: [log in to unmask]
=================
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Barker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 March 2003 16:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Accesibility Metadata and The LOM
Hi All,
I have been looking at the new accessibility metadata being developed by
Pete Rainger and have attached a copy of the document he produced
earlier.
If this was to be used in the UKCMF, I was thinking of a way that it
might be combined.
Based on the LOM final draft from 15th July 2002, I was wondering if the
classification elements could be used.The idea would be use 9
Classification with 9.1 Purpose = Accessibility and call the 9.2.1
source
say ("en","UKCMF Accessibility Metadata").
Now heres the clever bit, we could take each rating in the accessibility
schema as being a category so taking field 1.2 Colour and contrast if we
had a resource which was totally accessible in terms of colour and
contrast, we would categorise as 9.22 Taxon ["124",("en", "Totally
Accessible Colour and Contrast)]. Alternatively if the resource was
barely accessible in terms of colour and contrast then it could be
categorised at Taxon ["121",("en", Barely Accessible")]. Note that the
way of forming the Taxon Id uses the Functionality Metadata number first
followed by rating number so for 1.1 magnification with 0 inaccessible
we would have taxon Id "110".
I hope this makes sense (its not easy to explain these things).
The point of this method is it avoids adding new elements to the UKCMF
schema. It also makes sense since different countries will have
different legislation for accessibility so other schema's could choose
different taxonomies. (This sort of idea could also be used for
educational elements).
I don't come from a library background so I am not sure if this is a
good
way of doing it. Does this seem to be a reasonable way of using the
Taxon field or does it seem wrong? If you have any thoughts or opinions
please let me know.
Edward Barker
CETIS Metadata
ICBL
--
The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may
be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this
message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official
business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
|