Hi there,
I was off on Friday when most of this debate was taking place and as
usual you've given me plenty of food for thought. This is the second
long debate we've had about this particular element in the last six
months so it appears to be what our transatlantic colleagues would
refer to as a definite pain point.
Setting aside the issue of how to accurately record MIME types and
which MIME types to record my primary concern is whether or not this
element should remain mandatory in the UK LOM Core. I have a new draft
of the UK LOM Core ready for publication but I am willing to amend the
guidelines for this element if the community consensus is that 4.1
Technical.Format should no longer be mandatory. The last time we had
this debate we did not arrive at any firm conclusion but I wonder if
list members now have stronger or clearer feelings about this issue?
It's the intention of the UK LOM Core to reflect community practice and
as you are primary stakeholders within the UK education community I
will respect your recommendations.
So what's it to be....Mandatory or Optional (Recommended)?
Bye
Lorna
On 30 Apr 2004, at 10:54, Phil Barker wrote:
> Paul Hollands wrote:
>
>>
>> BUT.. :)... from a philosophical point of view should we really be
>> citing the MIME type of that flash advert in the header of an XML.com
>> article that is entirely unrelated to the content of the article
>> itself,
>
> True enough. especially since by the time the user gets to look at it
> there
> may be a different ad with a different MIME type.
>
> Also, I think UK LOM Core goes too far when it says "LOM stipulates
> that
> the technical data types of all compenents are recorded." Or if it
> doesn't
> go too far then there's a potential problem with the LOM: element
> 4.1:Format has a smallest permitted maximum of 40, and is unordered.
> So if
> a website uses 50 MIME types (unlikely I admit) but is mostly HTML,
> should
> I list only the most important, or list them all knowing that there is
> a
> chance that some application somewhere will omit the most important
> ones?
>
> But looking at this pragmatically rather than philosophically, I still
> think that this issue should not stand in the way of automatically
> harvesting all the MIME types on a page/site where possible.
>
>> and further, do I catalogue the version with all the headers in or the
>> print version which will have fewer objects in it?
>>
> Catalogue them both as two seperate related resources? [ducks]
> Seriously,
> this matters when the print version is more accessible than the other,
> and
> I hope the folk looking into accessibilty related aspects of LOM
> cataloguing will come up with something that will drive catalogue
> interface
> design in a direction which makes this feasible.
>
> 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/
>
>
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Assistant Director
Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
+44 (0)141 548 3072
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
|
