On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Boon Low wrote:
> > In the eLearning world, is it generally accepted that a learning object
> > repository isn't really a learning object repository unless it supports
> > the IMS DRI specification (at least in part)?
> >
> > I'd be interested to know how many of the listed repositories can
> > export
> > LOM records using the OAI-PMH for example.
>
> Another IMS DR spec example: a cross-searchable (via Z39.50/SRW)
> database with LOM results. But shouldn't the 'type' be defined by the
> *content* of the repositories, rather than by the technology protocols
> and metadata formats they support?
Yes, it should. I was pondering at a higher level (or something!).
What I think I was getting round to arguing is that, for example, JORUM
*is* a LOR (learning object repository) *because* it supports, or will
support, LOM/OAI-PMH but that exactly the same set of LOs made available
via a more traditional 'Web site' would *not* be a LOR.
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?
The issue about the 'type' of repository is secondary, because it can only
be discussed once you agree that what you are talking about is a
repository! :-)
But yes, if you want to compare several repositories (i.e. several
services that support the IMS DR spec) then it makes sense to describe
them in terms of what kind of content they contain.
Of course, there are other ways of categorising repositories as well -
national vs. institutional, subjects-specific vs. multi-disciplinary, K12
vs, H/FE, open vs. closed, free vs. fee, etc., etc.
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/
|