Just to be clear... I agree that my use of HAVE BEEN USED (past tense) is problematic and wrong.
Andy
--
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
t: 01225 474319
m: 07989 476710
twitter: @andypowe11
blog: efoundations.typepad.com
www.eduserv.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Jon Mason
> Sent: 10 February 2010 22:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Functional requirements and the model
>
> Andy,
>
> Stuart highlights the phrase "that HAVE BEEN USED as part of
> educational
> activities". When I read your first posting on this topic that phrase
> also
> jumped out at me -- for the reason that we need to be as interested in
> future use ("may be used") as much as past use ("have been used") . I
> like
> Phil's suggested replacement.
>
> Re *inherent* difficulty -- there's probably nothing *inherently*
> difficult
> because difficulty will always depend on who is interacting with the
> resource.
>
>
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010 7:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Functional requirements and the model
>
> Agreed... maybe.
>
> But we come back to the central problem... namely that very few so-
> called
> learning objects have an inherent 'difficulty level' and even those
> that do
> can be used in different ways which means we have to associate
> properties
> like 'difficulty' with an educationalUsage rather than with the
> Resource
> itself.
>
> I suppose we could define properties like 'intendedDifficulty' with
> definitions like 'the intended level of difficulty, as envisaged by the
> creator of the learning resource' but it seems to me that would be a
> significantly less useful property than something like 'difficulty' ??
>
> Andy
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
>
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
> ________________________________________
> From: Stuart Sutton [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 10 February 2010 17:47
> To: Andy Powell; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: Functional requirements and the model
>
> Andy, here we hit upon rough shoals because limiting use of these
> education
> properties (DC and LOM) to resources "that HAVE BEEN USED as part of
> educational activities" eliminates 99% of all the resources of interest
> to
> the community to which these properties have been applied-millions of
> resource descriptions.
>
> Stuart
>
> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Functional requirements and the model
>
> I was just taking a quick look at the functional requirements
> (http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Functional_20Requirements).
>
> As written, I think we have a problem with these in terms of the model
> (http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Model).
>
> We currently say things like:
>
> Support the discovery of learning resources and activities targeted at
> particular levels of difficulty.
>
> What I think we should be saying (in terms of the model) is:
>
> Support the discovery of learning resources that have been used as part
> of
> educational activities targeted at particular levels of difficulty.
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Andy Powell
> Research Programme Director
> Eduserv
> t: 01225 474319
> m: 07989 476710
> twitter: @andypowe11
> blog: efoundations.typepad.com
>
> www.eduserv.org.uk
|