Hi Aida,
Thank you very much for your mail. You certainly haven't missed the
point and your comments add significantly to the debate. The technique
that you have outlined below has already been considered by various
groups who have tried to address this particularly thorny issue. I
absolutely agree that this is the obvious ideal solution although a
couple of issues remain. Clearly we would need to create the two facets
of the vocabulary and decide on their terms, this in itself could
constitute a large, but in my opinion, very valid research project. We
also need to consider how we would present such a faceted vocabulary to
metadata creators and searchers. Would the vocab be presented as two
separate lists with at least one classification from each list being
mandatory? Or would it be better to present users with a single list?
Any further comments or suggestions on the practical creation and
implementation of a faceted vocabulary of this kind would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks again
Lorna
Aida Slavic wrote:
>Lorna,
>I have only one suggestion for a vocabulary building technique
>that may help.
>
>Analysing the suggested vocabulary I can see at least two main criteria
>for the organization of concepts
> A) type by the function the resource
> has in education
>
> B) type by form of presentation
>
>These are mutually exclusive categories of concepts and the educational
>resources
>are often a combination of those. Dublin Core Type is a good example of
>a 'pure' vocabulary, it has only one criterion. In the case of educational
>material I think at least two are needed. This means two facets of
>mutually exclusive concepts otherwise the resulting vocabulary is
>cross-classification ('apples and bicycles')
>I think the following would facilitate discussion (please note
>that this is only an example of vocabulary structure and not
>suggestion of real vocabulary and I may have made mistakes)
>
>A FUNCTION
>
>A1 for practice / training
> exercise
> written
> practical
> experiments (?)
>A2 for evaluation
> A21 test
> A211 type of test 1
> A212 type of test 2 etc.
> A22 questionnaire
> A23 written exercise(?)
> A24 interview
> A25 mixed
>
>A3 instructional material
> A31 lecture notes
> A32 slides
> A33 examples
> A34 mixed
>
>A4 combination of exercise/evaluation/lecture
>
>
>B FORM OF PRESENTATION
> B1 simulation (?)
> B2 graphical presentation
> B21 images
> B211 still images
> B212 moving images
> B22 graphs
> diagrams
> charts
> B23 drawings
> B24 sketches etc.
> B3 audio recording
> B4 text
> B51 questionnaire
> B52 narrative etc.
> B5 objects
> B6 events
> B7 mixed forms
>
>This kind of presentation may help to see what kind of vocabulary may
>be needed to work together ...for instance
>one can have
>A31 + B4 Lecture in the form of Video recording (moving images)
>I think that provision needs to be made for expressing a combination.
>
>Hierarchical organization helps to expand or collapse specificity.
>It enables easier mapping and vocabulary expansion - while a discussion is
>going on.
>It well shows gaps and 'holes'
>If this is done properly the hierarchy can easily be collapsed and
>the number of concepts reduced. The last stage is to decide what
>terms/symbols/codes will be used to present concepts.
>
>I accept that you may have already gone through the phase above and that
>the suggested vocabulary is the result but it would facilitate discussion
>if it would be grouped by criterion.
>
>I hope I haven't missed the point here.
>
>Aida
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The CETIS Metadata Special Interest Group
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lorna M. Campbell
>Sent: 03 September 2003 16:07
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: learningResourceType vocabulary discussion
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>Following last weeks Educational Content SIG meeting in Glasgow some of
>us met up informally to discuss the dreaded LOM learningResourceType
>vocabulary in the context of the UK LOM Core. Those of you who are
>familiar with this "idiosyncratic" vocabulary will not be surprised to
>learn that we haven't managed to come to any definitive conclusions.
>However we have continued the debate via e-mail and, as this topic is
>likely to be of considerable interest to the Metadata SIG community,
>I've collated our discussions into a word document and attached it below.
>
>There seems to be general agreement that the current LOM vocabulary does
>not meet our requirements but there is no general consensus as to what
>to replace it with. Among the suggestions we've had so far are:
>1. The Dublin Core Type vocabulary.
>2. The RDN/LTSN vocabularies.
>3. A single new vocabulary based on the above.
>
> In order to open the debate to all SIG members please forward any
>comments, suggestions or opinions to the list.
>
>Best Wishes
>Lorna
>
>--
>Lorna M. Campbell
>Assistant Director
>Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
>Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
>+44 (0)141 548 3072
>http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Assistant Director
Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
+44 (0)141 548 3072
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
|