> CancoreAccessForAllMetadataGuidelines/alternative/DiscussAlternative

Edit and add your comments below the underline. Please identify yourself by adding your full name at the end of your comments in parathesis and optionally, affiliation. Please do not edit comments from other participants.
(Toni Roberts - CanCore)

In the Tech. notes listing the sub-elements, I think the sub-elements of is alternative to (i.e. identifier, catalog and entry) should not be included. They are not technically sub-elements, as is alternative to is described as a character string, with recommendation to use the Repertoire of ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000 for the vocab. (Anastasia Cheetham, ATRC)

I don't know if this addresses your concern, but when I suggested we use the LOM Identifier structure, I was guided by the published CanCore guidelines. For example, go to http://www.cancore.ca/guidelines/CanCore_Guidelines_General_2.0.pdf, and scroll down to 1-5 where Identifier is documented. Identfier's value space and data type are unspecified, but both of Identifier's sub-elements, Catalog and Entry, have value space 'ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000', and data type 'character string'. I assumed that we are writing CanCore guidelines for accessibility metadata; hence, I thought we should be consistent with its existing guidelines. Even so, there is an error in defining the value space and data type of is alternative to as ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000', and 'character string', since these are for the Identfier sub-elements, not for the is alternative to (nor alternative) containers. I suspect other elements we have been working on that use Identifier are also putting the 'ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000' value space, and 'character string' at the wrong level.

(Joseph Scheuhammer, ATRC)