Hi Sarah, hi Irvin, thanks for making your discussion public.
>> For Educational.Intended End User Role we want add "parent" as an
>> extra value
>> to the LOMv1.0 vocab. Our current plan was to create a local vocab
>> (called
>> DETLRMv1.0) with the 4 LOM values + "parent". But as I understand your
>> post
>> we're better to have two vocabs for the element: LOMv1.0 and
>> DETLRMv1.0 but
>> the DETLRMv1.0 vocab will only have one value: "parent"? Is that right? I
>> understand how that would enhance interoperability.
>
>
> Yes, that is the recommended way to do it, for interoperability's sake
> as you
> say. It shouldn't make much difference to your cataloguers or local end
> users,
> so my feeling is one might as well do the most interoperable thing, and
> follow
> the emerging guidelines as closely as possible (or let the community
> know your
> reasons why you aren't doing so).
>
This is true. Of course an added term will only be interoperable if
other people use the same source/value pair for the same meaning. If you
want to share the information that the intended end user is a parent,
then the first question should be "has anyone else used this term?" In
this case the answer is yes, a large EU project called Celebrate added
"parent" (A person who holds the position or exercises the functions of
a parent; a protector, guardian (OED)) to the LOM vocabulary in their
application profile. So far so good, but I can't find the identifier
Celebrate used for the source of their vocabularies. Anyway, the
Celebrate application profile is here
http://www.eun.org/ww/en/pub/celebrate_help/application_profile.htm
There's a role for the UK LOM Core in helping people identify existing
sources for commonly required additional vocabulary terms. But to do so
we need to tell each other what is commonly required and which sources
are already existing...
> What about when we want to use a subset of
>
>> the LOM vocab? This is the case with Contributor.Role, where we don't
>> want to
>> use all the LOM values (+ add one of own). Can you specify a subset of
>> a LOM
>> vocab and still call it LOMv1.0?
>
>
> Now, that's a good question. I would tentatively say yes, because any
> metadata
> record you have will include a value from the LOM vocabulary- noone
> externally
> will know that your cataloguers didn't choose from the whole list!
> However, I
> would strongly suggest adding the one value of your own as an additional
> local
> vocabulary, following the principle discussed above.
>
I would agree with that.
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/
|