Paschoud,J wrote:
> I'm assuming that "secondary metadata" means most metadata that is subjective, and/or specific to a course or other application of a learning resource, rather than objective and about the resource itself).
>
> Surely, the process of a teacher adding "secondary metadata" to a resource would in many (all?) cases be called, by most teachers, the creation of a "reading list"? If so, shouldn't these requirements be covered by the IMS Resources Lists Interoperability standards - currently at the Working Group Charter stage?
>
Not always a teacher, and not always in a reading list. The secondary
metadata could be advice to other teachers, it could produced by an LTSN
subject centre evaluating how a resource has been used (like this one
http://www.ltsneng.ac.uk/resources/?restype=swcs&keyid=8)
> As I understand it, IMS-RLI is intended to be a way to wrap up objective, bibliographic-type descriptions (not necessarily of just books or journal articles), or (ideally) references to an authoritative source of such descriptions, in metadata that describes how each one, and the whole package is supposed to be used for a particular course.
>
> Howard Noble (he's on this list) is on the IMS-RLI w-g, and will be more currently informed about its' progress.
>
I'm on it too (the RLI working group, and this list). I think the sort of
comment which would go into a resource list would be "read chapter 3 of
this and compare it to such-and-such other resource, but take note that the
units are different". I don't think it is a [full] solution to this problem.
--
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/
|