Leslie Carr wrote:
> It may be the case that "Learning Objects" as defined by the
> IEEE LOM standard require specialised software and processes
> that aren't part of the arsenal of a generic repository.
Well, I don't want to get into the debate on the definition of a LO,
which is akin to discussing angels on the head of a pin and which has
sustained a few academic careers (Wiley comes immediately to mind).
Let's just talk about 'e-learning resources'. And yes, these materials
do require specialised systems, in my amateur experience anyway, though
I am just a techie and not a librarian or cataloguer so am a bit
riff-raffy in the company of repository professionals. I have looked at
DSpace and other systems so often discussed on here, and I couldn't see
how they could deliver the services I'd expect of an 'e-learning
resources' repository, whereas a system such as Intralibrary, developed
specifically for e-learning resources, does. Otherwise Intrallect
wouldn't get away with charging big (and deserved, before Sarah gives me
grief ;-)) bucks for its systems and services.
> If there is a separation, it is not at the platform level
> (why should it be? a repository is a database and some
> storage and a heap of services).
Er, precisely because "a repository is a database and some storage and a
heap of services". To store, catalogue and serve learning resources the
database needs to be designed rather differently from that of a
scholarly materials repository, and the services on top need to be
tailored to learning resources. Hell, even repositories designed for
'e-learning resources' differ markedly - I wouldn't use an Image
Management System to store learning resources, particularly multi-file
resources requiring tagging with educational metadata. Horses for
courses.
Cheers
Fred Riley
Learning Technologist
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Physiotherapy, University of Nottingham
Vcard: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nursing/sonet/about/fr_uon.vcf
Rather, it is likely to be
> at the policy and governance level, where decisions are made
> about WHAT ITEMS can be handled and WHICH SERVICES will be
> provided. And (crucially) the degree of openness and sharing
> that is facilitated, recommended or mandated!
>
> After all, it is likely to be the same people who are one
> minute creating research papers and conference presentations
> and the very next minute** creating lecture slides and
> coursework notes. Why shouldn't they be able to put both
> kinds of things into a repository and get the bnefits of
> persistence and services.
> --
> Les Carr
> Repository User
>
> **Probably 02:52am and 02:53am respectively if they are
> anything like me :-)
>
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
|