I take your point about technical requirements, eg HTTP, being hidden in a definition of something, but being a necessary part of that something, and with that in mind I don't suppose you can call any old database of Learning Objects a repository. Of your points below, I'd be inclined to say that a repository necessarily includes content and metadata management, and optionally includes the rest, if only because external services, content packaging, and access management are technically difficult to implement and require a high level of technical expertise in protocols, XML, and the rest. Even for those who know their XML onions, I dare say it's a time-consuming task to set up these more complex functionalities. Perhaps a database that only implements content and metadata management could be a Repository Lite ;-)
However, I'm new to this game so I'll follow this issue with interest, particularly as I'm committed to developing a RLO repository/database pretty soon.
Cheers
Fred
>>> Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> 06/08/2004 13:27:56 >>>
I guessing that in your view, a LOR is defined simply as something like
a managed database of learning objects [with a Web-based front-end]
I'm not sure about the bit in [] whereas I want to go further and say
something like
a database of learning objects with a Web-based user-interface that
supports the following functionality
- content management (add/update/delete)
- metadata management (add/update/delete)
- exposing content and metadata to other software services
(harvest/search/alert)
- content packaging (pack/unpack)
- access management (authentication/authorisation/accounting)
(Note that the other kinds of services listed at the end of Lorna's
Alt-i-Lab paper go beyond the core functionality of a LOR IMHO).
But perhaps you are right and that my list goes well beyond a lay person's
definition of a LOR??
Andy.
> Perhaps you could differentiate a repository employing a particular
> protocol (of which there seems to be quite an alphabetti spaghetti
> assortment) as a LRI-compliant or a OAI-PMH-compliant or
> CDM-and-bar-compliant repository.
>
> Following this, I'll certainly be careful about what I call the database
> of learning objects I'm starting to put together, if repository is going
> to be a reserved word - any suggestions for alternatives?
> Tongue-in-cheek suggestions welcome ;-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Fred
>
> Fred Riley
> Learning Technologist
> Room C57
> School of Nursing
> University of Nottingham
> Queen's Medical Centre
> Nottingham
> NG7 2HA
>
> Tel: +44 (0)115 92 49924 ext 37180
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> >>> Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> 05/08/2004 16:25:26 >>>
> Therefore, if any of the 'repositories' listed on
> http://elearning.utsa.edu/guides/LO-repositories.htm does not support the
> OAI-PMH (or one of the other protocols specified in the DR spec) then it
> isn't really a LOR!
>
> Would people disagree with that?
>
>
> This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any
> attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are
> advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
> University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
>
>
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
ECDL 2004, Bath, UK - 12-17 Sept 2004 - http://www.ecdl2004.org/
This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any
attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are
advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|