Handling the translator role in IMS Metadata and Dublin Core
Document Actions
Since we've added two new roles to our learning objects, editors and translators, we need to find a way to represent them in the metadata we use and exchange. There are at present three metadata standards we implement:
- Metadata Markup Language (MDML)
- OAI Dublin Core
- IMS Learning Resource Meta-Data, v. 1.2
Since MDML is our own language and is, as far as we can tell, used chiefly within the project, we can easily extend it to represent these two roles when we get to the point of creating and publishing a new version of it. In the meantime, the roles information is included in module_export_template, so it is available to support the rendering of our modules.
OAI Dublin Core and the IMS metadata require a little more care, since we encode and expose our metadata to partners and outside users via our OAI-PMH repository. To ensure minimal inconvenience and disruption to the users of this metadata, we must understand the metadata schemes and choose the best way to encode our new metadata.
OAI DC is an XML representation of the basic unqualified Dublin Core metadata element set, which offers limited semantic granularity in its elements. In my view, dc:contributor is the category to which both translators and editors belong rather than to dc:creator. dc:creator is defined in the standard as "an entity primarily responsible for making the resource", and neither editors nor translators are generally responsible for the intellectual content of a resource--they don't "make" the resource, though they do help get it into its present form.
The picture for Qualified Dublin Core does not at first glance look different, since the DC doesn't propose qualifiers for for dc:creator or dc:contributor. This does not mean that we may not or should not implement our own DC qualifiers. See the Dublin Core Qualifiers document (paragraph 4 under the heading "Dublin Core Qualifiers"):
It is expected that implementors will develop additional qualifiers for use within local applications or specific domains. Such qualifiers may not be understood by other applications. However, qualifiers that conform to the principles of qualification defined here are more likely to be reusable by other communities within the broader context of cross-domain discovery.Of course our qualifiers wouldn't be visible in OAI Dublin Core in any case, since it is defined as unqualified DC. If we decide to offer some form of qualified DC, we will have to choose an interoperable way to express our qualifiers in the exchange format we use.
The IMS Meta-Data Information Model also includes a contribute element, with roles for author, editor, but none for translator. While the IMS Learning Resource Meta-Data Best Practice and Implementation Guide doesn't discuss the extending of the listed values for elements like lifecycle.contribute.role, the IEEE LOM v1 on which it is based does:
Vocabularies are defined for some data elements. A vocabulary is a recommended list of appropriate values. Other values, not present in the list, may be used as well. However, metadata that rely on the recommended values will have the highest degree of semantic interoperability, i.e., the likelihood that such metadata will be understood by other end users or systems is highest. [under "4.4 Vocabularies"]
'Translator' is an obvious and well-understood role that we should include in our external metadata where it doesn't violate standards (as it would in OAI_DC). Your comments welcome.
I would suggest not lumping maintainers in: we don't currently list maintainership on the published module metadata page, for example. It's not really a role that has much of anything to do with the content of the object.
The case of maintainers is tough, but I think for now we omit them. DC defines 'contributor' in this way:
"An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource."
They don't say what kind of contributions one must make to be counted a contributor, but I think that's the kind of question the DC folks tried to avoid.
The "clear bright line" in the world of cataloging is responsibility for the intellectual content of the piece. Clearly an author has primary responsibility for the intellectual content of a piece. In a book where illustrations are a substantial part of the content, the illustrator also has primary responsibility for its intellectual content. Editors and translators are generally considered to have a decidedly secondary role with respect to the intellectual content. Editors are pretty much never candidates for main entries in catalogs, and translators are not given added entries unless the work has been translated by more than one person (hence the added entries help distinguish two translations in search results) or the translation is considered very important (Lattimore's Homer, or Kaufmann's Faust, for instance) (these policies may be dubious in the time of online catalogs). But it's clear to me that the contributions of a maintainer (if that role is properly used) do not come up to those of editors and translators. If a maintainer has done more than maintain, let them be promoted to editor or even author.