Hi,
My 2p,
Technical.location:
I think it should be made clear by IMS/LOM whether this is intended
to be a value that can be used directly to obtain a representation of the
resource or does it allow for indirect access?
"A location or a method that resolves to a location of the
resource."
I assume from the above description that they would allow the use of
URI, DOI, GUID etc
Relation
We do not currently use this category of metadata, but I intend to
look at the use of this particularly where the values can be generated
automatically e.g. IsPartOf, Replaces etc because I can see that this
information would be directly usable when aggregating/disaggregating
packages.
Regards,
Ben
-----------------------------------------------
Dr Ben Ryan
HLSI Software Development Manager
University of Huddersfield
Tel: 01484 473587
E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-----------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Barker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 24 February 2003 10:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: UKCMF]
NJ = Nik Jewel
LMC = Lorna Campbell
> NJ> I have a few questions that I hope you won't mind me putting to you. I
> raise these more to check my understanding than anything else.
>
> LMC>Thanks very much for your comments. This is exactly the kind of input
> we need to refine the framework and ensure it meets the communities
> requirements.
>
> NJ> 1. Re. 4.3 technical.location - This is listed as a mandatory element
> with preferably URL or URI. I appreciate that IMS/IEEE specs are
> designed for digital resources, however many SCs have offline resources
> that they are going to want/be asked to catalogue using the UKCMF. Do
> you think it will be possible to broaden this beyond URL/URI and (for
> someone? to) provide guidelines on other identifiers?
>
> LMC> Hmm, as far as I know the Learning Object Metadata standard is
> designed only for use with digital objects.
From IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 (LOM) standard section 1.1 Scope (first paragraph)
"For this standard a learning object is defined as any entity -- digital or
non-digital -- that may be used for learning, education or training"
[you could never accuse the LOM of not being abitious!]
> NJ>The reason why I ask is that dc.relation.references is vital to us. We
> currently use it with our PedR to express the relationship between a
> review or summary and the article/book/whatever that the review or
> summary is of.
>
> Expanding that to the domain of LOs rather than PedR for which the UKCMF
> is intended, is it intended that the relation should be the other way
> (assuming dropping 'references' is deliberate); that is, that an LO
> should point outwards to a review or case study or whatever related to
> it? I can see a certain logic in that.
>
> However, and this is a second question, I kind of get the impression
> that this element is not intended to be used in this way; that is, all
> the documentation points to the relations between two LOs and not
> between LOs and reviews/case studies. If that is the case, how should
> these relations be expressed? I imagine the answer is that this is not
> in the domain of the metadata for an LO but in the domain of the
> metadata for the review or case study that may be better described with
> DC anyway. Does that make sense or am I just rambling?
>
> LMC> No you're not rambling at all, that's a perfectly valid point and
> you're absolutely right. My understanding is that the "references" field
> is designed to describe the relationship between LOs and not to describe
> the relationship between a LO and a reference to it's use.
But a full case study of the use of a learning object could be a learning
object in itself (in a staff development context). [That's not to say I
think it makes much sense to use LOM to descibe reviews and case studies,
but given that the LOM relation element is mapped to DC.Relation, it would
be strange if a DC.Relation "References" element in a metadata instance
describing a review of a learning recource couldn't be paired to a LOM
Relation "isReferencedBy" in the record describing the learning resource.]
This is the sort of issue which it is useful to discuss in as wide a forum
as possible to try to establish what common practice is. I would be very
interested in hearing how other people use this element.
> This is the type
> of information that is often referred to as secondary metadata or
secondary
> usage metadata. User reviews, use contexts and histories of use are
other
> examples. Everyone agrees that this kind of information will be
invaluable
> for users of learning objects but there are currently no metadata schemes
> that deal directly with this. You can use the LOM annotation field or
> DublinC ore as you mention but this is a rather minimalist solution.
>
> The new IMS Metadata Special Interest Group discussed the question of
> secondary metadata this morning but recognise that this is a difficult
> issue to deal with. As a first step the SIG are proposing to gather use
> cases regarding the use of secondary metadata which will help us to
> identify user requirements in this area. This is a first step towards
> preliminary research so don't expect a new specification to appear next
> week! I have agreed to contribute a use case on behalf of JISC / CETIS
> and plan to contact the CETIS Metadata SIG for input. So if you have a
> particular use case or scenario in mind make a note of it now and keep an
> eye on the CETIS MD SIG mailing list.
>
mmm, I'm in two minds here. I think that recording how learning resources
have be used and why is valuable, and if it can be done in an agreed form
then that would be great.
Also, I think there is danger of trying to make the metadata do too much:
it's already defined as data about more-or-less anything, I wouldn't like
to add "and how it is used for teaching and learning" to that. Furthermore,
to me a case study or a review is more than data (secondary or otherwise)
about a resource: it is an information resource in it's own right, and it
is an information resource which is related to the learning object.
Phil.
--
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/
|
