Hi John,
My solution to this is similar, but I don't think of it as secondary
metadata. Metadata has to be *structured* data about data. I think what you
are talking about, and what is needed, is further information. So, I would
create the tutor notes/suggestions/design ideas/reviews etc in a suitable
format (html, pdf, rtf, word [in rough order of preference]). In an ideal
world I would give it an ID (POI, DOI ...) and put it on a webserver / in a
repository so that it gets a URL. Then in the LOM record for the original
resource I would put
relation
-kind = isReferencedBy
-Resource
-Identifier
- Catalog = [POI, DOI, ...]
- value = [id]
-Identifier
- Catalog = URL
- value = http://...
-Description = "a [case study] of the use of this resource ..."
Alternatively or addtionally in the metadata for the additional information
resource I would use the LOM or DC relation field with relationship kind of
references to point back to the original resource preferably using its ID,
so that a service could come to my metadata catalogue of additional
resources and say "give me additional information about the resource known
as [id]". (There's a use case for identifiers there for anyone interested)
Phil.
John Casey {DAICE} wrote:
> Apologies for cross postings
>
> Dear All
> The question of secondary metadata (tutor notes, suggestions, design ideas,
> reviews etc) has been a vexed one and has thrown up some interesting debate,
> including the question of whether anyone wants it or not. That debate, for
> me, leads to some very interesting places but I don't what to explore them
> just yet....Instead I want ask a simple question and get your opinions.
>
> Secondary Metadata: The project I am working on and the teachers I am
> working with want to use secondary metadata in the context of learning
> objects as an extension of their current practice (in fact they already use
> it in their normal 'real world' non-digital work). But we have some
> problems. The annotations field is not much good for it and a restricted or
> shared vocabulary looks unlikely (or even desirable given the multiplicity
> of pedagogic models out there - from the ever-present transmission model to
> some of the more 'far-out' models, if you are interested in the models this
> link is very handy http://tip.psychology.org/).
>
> So, instead of trying to bend the LOM (Learning Object Metadata) into to
> doing something it was not really designed to do what about this simple, and
> crude, suggestion?
>
> For those that want secondary metadata then they create it in a rich text
> file and place it in an agreed place within the object. If that is a
> workable way forward then it would be good if the file had a common name
> like say 'notes'. This way all we would be specifying would be where the
> secondary metadata is located in an object and where people should look if
> they wanted to find it. Of course many objects would not have any secondary
> metadata - i.e. it would not be mandatory. But if there was any then it
> would be useful if there was a convention to place it somewhere and give it
> a common name.
>
> What goes inside the secondary metadata file would be totally up to the
> authors / creators etc and if you were interested in what they had to say
> you would have to engage with that on their terms, at least initially, -
> rather like we do in the real world.
>
> So, this secondary metadata file would be just a 'common space' where
> secondary metadata could be placed and read - by people, not machines. If
> this was so then we could say in the annotations field of the LOM "see the
> 'notes' file for more information' - some such. If we agreed on a set name
> for the secondary metadata file the presence of that secondary metadata
> information (yes /no) could even be denoted in some way in the LOM - and be
> machine readable.
>
> They way I see it metadata and learning objects exist on a spectrum which at
> the 'sophisticated' end have detailed 'well formed' metadata and may have
> SCORM and Learning Design attributes and characteristics - and very exciting
> and full of potential all that is.
>
> [But the development of these technologies and things like the integration
> of runtime systems, learning objects, student records and enterprise systems
> and so on is also throwing up (as they do) lots of unforeseen questions
> about the our professional cultures and institutions. See this article for
> interesting ESRC research on this relatively neglected 'systems' aspect of
> our kind of work: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/virtual-universities/] I
> digress....
>
>
> As we go back down through the spectrum of learning objects we move towards
> the 'primitive' end where people are using repositories as very simple
> digital libraries - and getting very immediate benefits, that's where I am
> coming from.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>John Casey
>>Project Officer
>>Learning to Learn - an X4L Project
>>DAICE
>>Airthrey Castle
>>University of Stirling
>>Stirling
>>FK9 4LA
>>Tel: +44 (0)1786 467943
>>email: [log in to unmask]
>
> web: http://www.stir.ac.uk/departments/daice/l2l/
>
>
> --
> The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
> charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may
> be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated
> in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such
> person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone
> and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
> prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this
> message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
> immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email
> for messages of this kind.
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
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/
|