> > The Openlearn feeds include relevant resources using an enclosure tag
> - and in the Xpert database, that content is stored. Now if we could
> get into those PDFs and find pictures, we could provide those resources
> in the results too. Then a more formal method of understanding the
> relationship between content becomes really handy.
> > Jorum does a similar thing with a lot of pieces broken into parts,
> but then sadly no dc:relation or indication of associated pieces.
> > So there is lots of scope for providing more granular information on
> learning objects - and this would be great for a "remixing service".
> >
> Absolutely right - a formal and common resource descriptor is, in my
> opinion also, very much a necessity for that kind of granular
> information - our proposal suggesting LOM for this task, DC being a
> good
> alternative. However, that seems to be a point of contention here,
> with
> some people not liking the idea of using formal, standardised
> ontologies.
Well at the moment there is a bit of a metadata impasse in that certain systems now want differing forms of data, whereas others want compliance with X,Y,Z. Some people want a little, some people a lot. I conducted some experiments on metadata last year involving bribing people with cake in exchange for metadata. Even offering people free cake still led to poor metadata.
So your metadata issue is - who is going to use it? Because if no one is going to use it, then it doesn't matter what format it is in.
Now you could possibly repurpose a block of related content into a single common cartridge package - that would support a packaged format (vaguely akin to a LOM or DC item) with some metadata, but also usable in a lot of tools. It's not as remixable as raw content, but as an exchange format - then it probably has potential for wider use than providing LOM or DC by themselves.
Pat
|