Hello, a few points to bear in mind:
1) be careful about terminology. the example below doesn't look to me like
the IEEE LOM binding, it looks like the IMS binding. The LOM binding can be
find here: http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~erikd/LOM/ and looks like this:
<status>
<source>LOMv1.0</source>
<value>draft</value>
</status>
2) If you have any problems with the LOM binding, let Erik Duval know (same
URL as above)
3) IMS know their binding is not the best, which is why they are proposing
to adopt the LOM binding once it goes through the IEEE balotting procedure.
So if you want to improve the IMS binding, then target the LOM XML binding.
Phil.
Phillip Beauvoir wrote:
> Yes, what the man said. :-)
>
> The LOM Binding is a pig really. Let's take the Element "Status" in Life
> Cycle. This could simply be set to "Draft". This is how it looks:-
>
> <status>
> <source>
> <langstring xml:lang="x-none">LOMv1.0</langstring>
> </source>
> <value>
> <langstring xml:lang="x-none">Draft</langstring>
> </value>
> </status>
>
> That's a lot of nodal complexity! And this source/value/langstring
> construct exists throughout. If you're building a UI, let's say a Form
> View, the user only needs to see the 2nd langstring value ("Draft").
> "source" is determined by the vocab you're using (set once, elsewhere
> presumably) and "xml:lang" is always "x-none". So effectively you have to
> map "status" to the langstring node of the "value" Element. Great, eh?
> What rule are you going to put in your UI framework to do that?
>
> Surely something like the following would suffice:
>
> <status source="LOMv1.0">Draft</status>
>
> Now that would make my life a LOT easier!
>
> 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/
|