Audience

Category: “Audience”
DC-Education Working Document–January 24, 2000
This Version: <http://www.ischool.washington.edu/sasutton/dc-ed/Audience_SS_1.html>
Latest Version: <http://www.ischool.washington.edu/sasutton/dc-ed/Audience_SS_1.html>
Editor: Stuart A. Sutton
© 2000 Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. All Rights Reserved.

Purpose
This working document is intended to represent the Editor’s synthesis of the DC-Education listserv discussion of the “audience” category through the above date; and sets out a strawman proposal for an “auxiliary” AUDIENCE element for discussion both online and at the face-to-face meeting in Melbourne. The document does not represent all of the various ideas expressed on the listserv; rather, it seeks to represent areas of general consensus. The Editor hopes that bringing forward a strawman proposal will assist in the identification of open issues needing resolution in Melbourne. This working document is not an official document of the DCMI.

“Audience” is one of five categories of information derived from an exploration of existing Dublin Core-based education/training-focused metadata projects and the IEEE 1484.12 Learning Object Metadata (LOM) proposed standard. It is the Editor’s intention that this document be “refined” periodically as the online discussions progress. For information on the remaining four categories, see the minutes of the DC7 DC-Education Working Group Meeting: <http://www.ischool.washington.edu/sasutton/DC7_DCEd.html>
Discussion Summary
It is generally agreed among members of the Working Group that the capacity to designate various aspects of the intended users of an educational entity being described is an important function for networked information discovery and retrieval. It is further agreed that there are two general classes of audience that are peculiar to the education/training domain. These two classes are related and include in the first instance those persons, organizations, and other forms of entities that administor or intermediate access to the resource by the second class of audience–the “end” users for whose benefit the resource being described was designed. The table below summarizes areas of general consensus and notes areas of debate.

ELEMENT ELEMENT
QUALIFIER VALUE QUALIFIER
(CONTROLLED VOCABULARIES) DESCRIPTION

AUDIENCE The user for whom the resource was (explicitly?) designed.

INTERMEDIARY General Population Descriptors:

Administrator

Policy personnel

Educator/trainer

Parent

Student

Some entity that mediates the beneficiary’s access to the resource.

BENEFICIARY General Population Descriptors:

Administrator

Policy Personnel

Educator/Trainer

Parent

Student

Student/Trainee Trait Descriptor Classes:

Intelligence/ability

Physical/emotional characteristics

Socio-economic status

Cultural/linguistic groups

Education level

Grade level

Age level (age and age range)

Gender

The ultimate beneficiary of the resource. The user for whose ultimate benefit the resource was created.

Editor Note: The same general population descriptors appear in both the “Intermediary” and “Beneficiary” list of value qualifiers. It is assumed that were the same value to appear in both qualfiers for the entity being described, the “Intermediary” value would be unnecessary (but not illogical if presernt). There is no proposal before the Working Group to use this listing (or any other) as a DCEd-endorsed controlled vocabulary.

Editor Note: There was considerable discussion on the list regarding the “propriety” of several of these classes of student/trainee trait descriptors. A number of them have both cultural and national implications (and variations). At this time, the Editor assumes that various schemes (value qualifiers/controlled vocabularies) would express this diversity. The classes have been enumerated by the Working Group in order to determine whether the AUDIENCE element and its two qualifiers are adequate for the task. Development of such vocabularies is beyond the scope of the working Group. It is assumed such vocabularies would be developed by various practice communities, education/training organizations, as well as govenment agencies.

Proposal

ELEMENT:

Name:  AUDIENCE

Definition:  The user for whom the resource was designed.

ELEMENT QUALIFIERS

Name:  INTERMEDIARY

Definition:  Some entity that mediates the beneficiary’s access to the resource.

Name:  BENEFICIARY

Definition:  The ultimate beneficiary of the resource. The user for whose ultimate benefit the resource was created.

VALUE QUALIFIERS†

Name:

Definition:

†While the Working Group currently does not propose value qualifiers, it recognizes the need for their immediate development. The discussions did identify both “General Population Descriptors” and “Student/Trainee Trait Descriptor Classes” that provide a potential framework for the development of controlled vocabularies meeting the needs of various practice communities, organizations, and national/international schemes. The question is open whether DC should attempt such vocabulary development or leave such development to the various communties .... or exercise both options.

DC-Education Working Group Participants

ELEMENT	ELEMENT QUALIFIER	VALUE QUALIFIER (CONTROLLED VOCABULARIES)	DESCRIPTION
AUDIENCE			The user for whom the resource was (explicitly?) designed.
	INTERMEDIARY	General Population Descriptors: Administrator Policy personnel Educator/trainer Parent Student	Some entity that mediates the beneficiary’s access to the resource.
	BENEFICIARY	General Population Descriptors: Administrator Policy Personnel Educator/Trainer Parent Student Student/Trainee Trait Descriptor Classes: Intelligence/ability Physical/emotional characteristics Socio-economic status Cultural/linguistic groups Education level Grade level Age level (age and age range) Gender	The ultimate beneficiary of the resource. The user for whose ultimate benefit the resource was created. Editor Note: The same general population descriptors appear in both the “Intermediary” and “Beneficiary” list of value qualifiers. It is assumed that were the same value to appear in both qualfiers for the entity being described, the “Intermediary” value would be unnecessary (but not illogical if presernt). There is no proposal before the Working Group to use this listing (or any other) as a DCEd-endorsed controlled vocabulary. Editor Note: There was considerable discussion on the list regarding the “propriety” of several of these classes of student/trainee trait descriptors. A number of them have both cultural and national implications (and variations). At this time, the Editor assumes that various schemes (value qualifiers/controlled vocabularies) would express this diversity. The classes have been enumerated by the Working Group in order to determine whether the AUDIENCE element and its two qualifiers are adequate for the task. Development of such vocabularies is beyond the scope of the working Group. It is assumed such vocabularies would be developed by various practice communities, education/training organizations, as well as govenment agencies.