Re: [Bodington-developers] Resource metadata schema

[Colin T. <col...@co...>]

Antony Corfield wrote:
>>> The proper solution is to upgrade Bod to use a newer schema -- anyone
>>> have views about whether IMS LOM is a good/bad idea?
> 
> 
> Well it's a bloody big set of elements for a start ;-)
> How about simple Dublin Core -15 elements- which map to LOM
> http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/

Agree that LOM looks like a nightmare. I've never liked Dublin Core, but 
maybe I'm the only person in the world who doesn't!

We've looked at a content package from WebCT, and it's in LOM. (Dunno if 
that was an option in exporting...)

I think Peter's right about the spec Jon was writing to:
http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/mdbindv1p1.html

I'm going to add my keyword (and contributor) elements following that 
spec, and then maybe re-visit whether we change it, or allow Bod to 
handle multiple schemas later...

Colin

> 
>> BuildingSessionImpl::importMetadata presupposes a top-level metadata
>> element named "record" in imported metadata, and will fail if that is
>> not found (BuildingSessionImpl:1450).
> 
> 
> Yep *Not* good - should really parse against a given schema!
> 
> 
> 
>> BuildingSessionImpl::updateBasicMetadata *also* presupposes a top-level
>> metadata element named "record" in imported metadata, and will fail if
>> that is not found (BuildingSessionImpl:1763).  That's called from
>> createconfirm in Facility, which would seem pretty key to a running
>> Bodington!
>>
>>         - Peter
>>