Hi Gerry,
Great to see you re-entering the fray, thought we'd lost you for a while there
;-)
<snip>
>The mandated information was thought of a 'record' in the sense that it
>would meet the needs of an learning resource information seeker who isn't
>necessarily a learner btw. Not all the information contained would also have
>to be exchanged or exposed in all circumstances of course. And not all
>atomic things requiring metadata would need all mandatory parts of the UK
>LOM Core completed. It was only really concerned with learning resources,
>not necessarily for an individual question that may one day be contained in
>a learning resource or assessment instrument.
>It is not that the UK LOM Core is trying to be everything, more that many
>people are trying to everything with it.
Good point! This is a problem with the LOM in general and to some degree
relates to the thorny issue of how you define a learning object / resource.
It's certainly worth bearing in mind that the UK LOM Core was originally
designed to facilitate interoperable resource description and discovery of
learning objects / resources rather than highly granular items or assets.
Although I'm not sure how the type of material that the RDN & LTSN have to
deal with fits into this picture.
<snip>
>Perhaps we need to think [use cases] of different sets of
>mandatory/recommended elements for different purposes all using the same
>localised LOM vocabularies and cataloguing guidance.
I suspect that gathering use cases is going to be the only way to resolve some
of the many tricky issues that have been raised recently. Sounds like a job
for the Metadata SIG to me ;-)
Bye
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/
|