Hi All,
> I would certainly agree that at the very least, a recommended binding be
> provided.
>
> In practice the LOM CORE is designed to be extended, so there will of
course
> be interoperability issues between different implementations based on
their
> local extensions - but having everyone starting from the same binding
should
> help to minimise this.
>
The suggestion is not to change the IEEE LOM binding, just to create
schema
files that work. The resulting XML will be the same, it will just mean the
schema files can actually be used by more than the few applications that
implement all the latest new features.
> On a practical note - I know that IMS have stated in the past that they
> intend to 'retire' their binding at some point in the future in favour
of
> the IEEE version - but in the mean time, it might be worth also creating
a
> binding of UK LOM CORE based on the IMS binding since this is the one
that
> is commonly used in the field, and this situation is likely to continue
for
> some time (my instinct is that this will take years not months - but
happy
> to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise).
True, but why introduce two slightly different bindings (because the
resulting XML of both bindings is only 98% identical) when you don't have
one for the UK LOM CORE yet?
Side note: funny thing is that SCORM 2004 already tells you to use the
IEEE
binding (not the IMS one).
(I know nobody in the UK uses SCORM, just thought it was funny since they
of
course don't provide any binding files with their docs)
> > Wilbert said that he has looked at the binding and schema quite
> > recently and has found them to be quite workable but I don't know
> > exactly what he's been doing with them.
I managed to get the draft schemas working in XMLSPY, but it meant I had
to
edit the schema's (add schemaLocations) and had to put them on a webserver
(wouldn't work from my local disc). Now I know XMLSPY is a bad application
(at least many people think so), but it isn't something you would have to
do.
Also, to be usable in combination with IMS CP, you would need just one or
two schema files, not twelve or so in four different subfolders.
> > What would be very useful at this stage would be for a group of
> > developers (Phils Beauvior and Barker, Paul, Ben, Pierre, Wilbert,
> > etc ..... you know who I'm talking about :-) to investigate the
> > possibility of creating a profile of the new IEEE XML binding which
> > implementers could choose to use in conjunction with the UK LOM Core
> > to ensure basic interoperability.
Sure, no problem. I wouldn't want to have to create the schemas myself,
but
testing them, looking at drafts versions would be no problem.
I know there are at least a couple of people here in the Netherlands as
well
that would be interested in the results.
I think though, that we (CETIS / SURF SiX) should think about what to do
if
the schemas that Ben is going to create turn out to be good and workable.
Some 'official' adoptation of them (the implementation of the binding)
would
be good in some stage (I think).
Best wishes,
Pierre Gorissen
Coordinator SURF SiX
Fontys University of Professional Education
The Netherlands
W: http://www.fontys.edu/
W: http://e-learning.surf.nl/SiX/english/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Op deze e-mail zijn de volgende voorwaarden van toepassing:
http://www.fontys.nl/disclaimer
The above disclaimer applies to this e-mail message.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|