hey! what is this, pick on sarah day? i'm not swithering, i believe i
said i would not vote but would leave it to the wisdom of my colleagues
(by which i meant you guys, not my colleagues on my project), as we have
not yet looked at our application profile. however, lorna seems to have
summed up the prevailing feeling in such an articulate way that, as
always, i am completely submissive to her prevailing judgement.
and yes, i also vote for the hat thing, even though i failed to provide
the necessary conditions for paul to eat it. perhaps he will oblige at
the next metadata sig meeting? do you think it would take up a whole 30
minute slot with time for questions? "how did it taste?" "was it chewy
or crunchy?"
i better shut up before someone force feeds me the damn hat...
:-}
s.
Lorna Campbell wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Hope you're all enjoying the debate :-) So far we have have 5 votes
> for optional, 1 for mandatory and Sarah appears to be swithering.
> I'm quite happy to keep the debate going till the end of the day and
> will base the LOM Core guidelines on what ever consensus we have
> reached at that point.
>
> It's probably worth stressing that the whole point of the UK LOM Core
> is interoperability. It's designed to be the absolute minimum subset
> of useful LOM elements on which implementors can build their own
> application profiles. So even if I make Technical.Format optional I
> would still expect to see it in the majority of profiles based on the
> LOM Core. Although the RDN/LTSN usecase may turn out to be
> relatively unusual I think the issues that Paul and others have
> highlighted regarding dynamically generated content are likely to be
> widely applicable across the sector and therefore they require serious
> consideration. My gut feeling is that I would rather err on the side
> of caution and make a potentially useful element optional rather than
> include a mandatory element that implementors are not going to use
> which would defeat the whole purpose of having an interoperable common
> core of elements.
>
> Btw whatever the outcome I would still be delighted to see Paul eating
> his hairy Madeiran hill farmers hat. You don't get many hairy
> Madeiran hill farmers round these parts you see.....
>
>
> Bye
> Lorna
>
> On 5 May 2004, at 13:15, Sarah Currier wrote:
>
>> Heh. I can't think about that icky stuff, I'm a big picture kinda
>> gal... ;-) (Sarah backs out of room grinning cheesily).
>> OK, point taken Paul. Hence I guess back to the question of whether
>> to make it mandatory or optional but, say, recommended in certain
>> circumstances. If it actually IS impossible to determine in some
>> circumstances, but possible and very valuable in others, then... blah
>> blah <rehash here all previous arguments which are very valid>.
>>
>> I just had a kneejerk reaction to "too hard for cataloguers". I
>> think, if the "mandatory but use a filler where it is undeterminable"
>> is chosen then cataloguers can cope with that. And if "optional but
>> recommended in circumstances where it is determinable and useful for
>> users" is chosen then the cataloguers can cope with that. If they
>> know what to do in the given circumstance.
>>
>> OK, back over to you all... let's have a decision for Lorna so I can
>> get my hands on the nice new UK LOM Core.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> Paul Hollands wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sarah,
>>>
>>> OK.. Bucks where buccal cavity is :) If you can solve the XML.com
>>> conundrum
>>> and answer Nik's question about at which point in his XML
>>> transformation
>>> pipeline the various components combine to become the resource, and how
>>> we tell what the MIME type is of a Web resource given that Web servers
>>> provide a different answer based on the capabilities of the client
>>> requesting it, I will fully support the mandatory status ;) Further,
>>> I'll eat my hairy woollen madeiran hill farmers hat :)
>>>
>>> How bout it?? ;)
>>>
>>> The issue here is that with good old fashioned static content, the MIME
>>> types for your average PowerPoint presentation or even a Web page with
>>> some GIFs in were straightforward to determine. With dynamic content
>>> this becomes a much darker art.
>>>
>>> I'd go further than Mike and say that a mandatory requirement makes the
>>> RLLOMAP cataloguers job nigh on impossible in many circumstances. For
>>> someone creating metadata for a LO content package however, your
>>> argument holds.
>>>
>>> (Good to have you input despite the best efforts of JISCmail BTW :) )
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>> Phil Barker wrote:
>>>
>>>> [for some reason Jiscmail intercepted this message from Sarah and
>>>> decided not to deliver it... Phil]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Sarah Currier <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Date:Wed, 05 May 2004 11:30:46 +0100
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't even begun to look at application profile issues for Stòr
>>>> Cùram yet, so I feel reluctant to vote either way on this and will
>>>> cede to the wisdom of my colleagues.
>>>>
>>>> However, I do have a problem with any decision being based on
>>>> making life easier for cataloguers (sorry Mike- but you already
>>>> know how I feel - and for those who don't know me, I'm an
>>>> ex-cataloguer myself) - what makes life easier for cataloguers is,
>>>> in a case like this, good guidance notes of some kind and a bit of
>>>> training/support. Cataloguing isn't just sitting on one's backside
>>>> ploughing through one record after another- a bit of research is
>>>> often necessary for certain fields and that's what makes the job
>>>> interesting. The decision should be based on the needs of users,
>>>> and management should be making sure those needs are met behind the
>>>> scenes.
>>>>
>>>> Another day, another rant...
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *******************************************
>> Ms. Sarah Currier
>> Librarian, Stòr Cùram Project
>> "A Storehouse of Learning Resources for Social Care"
>> Dept. of Social Work, University of Strathclyde
>> c/o: Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
>> Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
>> Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
>> Web: http://storcuram.blogs.com/weblog/
>> Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573 Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
>> Stòr Cùram is Gaelic for Storehouse of Care
>> *******************************************
>>
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
*******************************************
Ms. Sarah Currier
Librarian, Stòr Cùram Project
"A Storehouse of Learning Resources for Social Care"
Dept. of Social Work, University of Strathclyde
c/o: Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
Graham Hills Building, 50 George Street
Glasgow G1 1QE, Scotland, United Kingdom
Web: http://storcuram.blogs.com/weblog/
Tel.: +44 (0)141 548 4573 Fax: +44 (0)141 553 2053
E-mail: [log in to unmask] Mob.: +44 (0)7980 855 801
Stòr Cùram is Gaelic for Storehouse of Care
*******************************************
|