Ok, thanks Dan.
I'll leave -2002 in there, as it's the primary target currently. LOM
instances are discussed in .1 as well, so I think we're right in using
that term.
So, this is the version we want to submit to the IEEE! Wayne, the ball
is in your hands.
Title: Standard for Resource Description Framework (RDF) Vocabulary for
IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Data Elements
Purpose:
There is an increasing demand for definitions of IEEE Learning Object
Metadata (LOM) data element semantics which allow the expression of IEEE
LOM instances in applications using Semantic Web technologies such as
the Resource Description Framework (RDF). For some data elements, this
expression can be achieved using existing, stable RDF vocabularies. The
purpose of this Standard is to define the semantics of data elements not
covered by such vocabularies. This Standard forms an important basis for
making IEEE LOM useful in this larger metadata context.
Scope:
This Standard defines a Resource Description Framework (RDF) vocabulary
to express the semantics of data elements of the LOMv1.0 base schema of
IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (IEEE Std
1484-12.1-2002). The Standard makes use of modeling primitives from the
RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDF Schema) and the Dublin Core
Abstract Model (DCAM). The Standard includes the specification of RDF
terms, including properties, classes, vocabularies, syntax encoding
schemes and vocabulary encoding schemes, covering the semantics of data
elements defined in IEEE LOM. The Standard includes the specification of
URIs to use to identify the terms. The Standard does not define new
terms for data elements that can be appropriately expressed using
sufficiently stable, existing RDF vocabularies (notably Dublin Core).
This Standard does not address the construction of conforming IEEE LOM
instances using RDF technology.
Title: Recommended Practice for Expressing IEEE Learning Object Metadata
Instances Using the Dublin Core Abstract Model
Purpose:
There is an increasing demand for interoperable definitions of Dublin
Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) metadata terms and IEEE Learning Object
Metadata (LOM) data elements which allow these to be used together in
metadata instances. This Recommended Practice addresses this requirement
by describing how to use the definitions of metadata terms defined by
the IEEE Standard for Resource Description Framework (RDF) Vocabulary
for IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Data Elements (IEEE Std
1484.12.x-200x) and DCMI metadata terms together in Dublin Core metadata
instances. This represents a partial and short-term solution to the
overall issue of metadata interoperability in learning, education, and
training contexts. The Recommended Practice also aims to inform the
longer-term process of trying to align the abstract models of IEEE LOM
and DCAM, as it will provide an analysis of fundamental
incompatibilities between the two models.
Scope:
This Recommended Practice describes how to construct IEEE Standard for
Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (IEEE Std 1484-12.1-2002) instances using
the Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM). It describes how to use the
definitions of metadata terms defined by the IEEE Standard for Resource
Description Framework (RDF) Vocabulary for IEEE Learning Object Metadata
(LOM) Data Elements (IEEE Std 1484.12.x-200x) together with DCMI
metadata terms for expressing IEEE LOM conforming instances as DCAM
description sets. This Recommended Practice does not address the issue
of expressing DCAM description sets or DCMI metadata terms using LOM
data elements.
/Mikael
fre 2007-11-30 klockan 10:44 -0500 skrev Daniel Rehak:
> Sorry for the late response -- I've been on the road all week.
>
> I did another pass -- editorial
> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddgkwq55_0g74bwm
>
> I was trying to do proper IEEE Std citations. The IEEE editors will
> probably nit pick more on this, but its closer to their style.
>
> I did put the year in the citations, e.g., 1484-12-1.2002. One thing
> to decide is if this standard will cover only the 2002 version or any
> version of 1474.12.1. In the actual standard we will need to cite if
> we are using particular versions or not of any other standard.
>
> The big question I have is about "LOM instances". The PAR cites
> 1484.12.1, which is the data schema. XML instances are defined in
> 1482.12.3. I assume we want to map generic binding independent LOM
> (.1) to binding/serialization independent RDF. I don't know if
> readers will get confused over this and think its about how to embed
> an XML encoding of LOM in an XML encoding of RDF, or if we need to be
> explicit in the scope that this is binding independent.
>
> - Dan
>
> On Nov 26, 2007 9:02 AM, Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Google doc
> >
> > --
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:00:01 -0800
> > Subject: PAR phrasing
> > I've shared a document with you called "Untitled":
> > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddgkwq55_0g74bwm&invite=ghg3hgb
> >
> > It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above.
> > ---
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
<[log in to unmask]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|
