Following are where my thoughts are currently at in attempting to understand a rationale for a national resource type vocabulary. Have all but given up looking for a Use Case rationale in the “out there” Harvesting/Googling environment, and have found something I think of more value down our institutional feet level. — Thanks to ongoing efforts and brain-picking this is what I’ve found. It’s about interoperability.
Migration between repositories can be a lot less of a hassle if the values for the resource types are in sync across the repositories.
This rationale opens up a different set of questions and guidelines for determining what a standard thesaurus should look like. If one is looking at migration issues between repositories in deciding on a standard thesaurus then the focus falls back, in part, on what is useful for the purposes of each institutional repository and how these can be carried across repository solutions. This question is not the central concern if one is looking at a standard for harvest/search needs – for which I have still to find a justifiable use case.
With the former case being the primary focus, one is probably interested in a longer (more granular) list than the latter. The former case also makes something like the RQF resource output types look more practical than with the latter. It also possibly means having a closer look at what is currently being used to ensure future interoperability.
There are also consequences for finding data entry “templates” for each resource type that can be carried across relatively seamlessly.
The migration issue also points to the value of a standard applying at the Australian national level.