Hello All.
As those of you on the Metadata SIG list will know, IMS are looking at how
update their metadata specification in the light of the LOM becoming a
standard. CETIS has been asked to help in soliciting opinion from
implementors of IMS Metadata (that includes content packagers) on the
impact of any changes.
***Important***
There are potentially significant changes to the metadata XML binding which
might be made as a result of this.
***Important***
If you have any questions feel free to raise them with me, or on the CETIS
Metadata sig list.
Please send your replies to me, if possible in the next two weeks, I will
see that they get sent to the relevant people in IMS.
Regards, Phil Barker.
--message from IMS:--
Currently IMS has as one of its specifications, a Metadata Information
Model and an associated XML Binding. The IMS Information model was one of
two documents that were used ~4 years ago within IEEE LTSC as the basis for
the now standardized IEEE LTSC Learning Object Metadata Document (LOM).
The current IMS Metadata Information Model is the same as LOM, except for
recent changes made to LOM prior to its standardization. LTSC is currently
working on a number of bindings for Metadata, including an XML Binding.
Approval of these bindings is expected some time in the second half of this
year.
[For the latest draft of the IEEE XML binding see
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~erikd/LOM/]
In an IMS Special Interest Group looking at next steps in IMS Metadata
efforts, a clear consensus has arisen to address growing confusion
regarding IMS's position on which information model and binding to promote,
what to do about future evolution of Metadata, and best practice for
profiling metadata. The SIG's first effort is to propose a charter that
will call for the resolution of existing confusion over which information
model and binding should be promoted. Members of the SIG have reached a
level of consensus that the IEEE LOM should be the basis for future IMS
Metadata activities.
There are a variety of ways in which IMS could "point to" the LOM as the
basis for future IMS metadata work. IMS seeks the perspective of adopters
of IMS Metadata to provide input on this issue. We would appreciate your
response to the following questions or any other suggestions you might have
prior to Feb 17th.
If you are aware of other adopters of IMS Metadata specification who should
be contacted, please contact Toni Roberts (Chair IMS Metadata SIG)
([log in to unmask]) or Steve Griffin (Chair Requirements Committee, COO,
and Co-founder) ([log in to unmask]).
QUESTIONS
1. If IMS's Technical Advisory Board approves a revision to the IMS
Metadata Information Model and/or Binding, that in effect refers readers to
the IEEE LTSC LOM, will this affect your orgnization? If so, please
explain. Please describe the problems, if any, and your recommended
solutions associated with refering to the Binding and the Information Model
separately, if applicable.
2. What would you see the ongoing role of IMS in terms of metadata
specificiations and/or development, if it 'pointed to' the IEEE LTSC LOM?
3. What assistance if any could IMS provide to your organization in
communicating this change to your key stakeholders or management?
4. Are there any timing issues (i.e. when the change should be made) that
the Technical Board should take into account?
5. Other related concerns and suggestions?
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Advisor
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
|