 |
 |
Dear Victoria/Ed, While I'm here at the ADS on secondment I'm developing a series of teaching and learning materials which will be posted online. We've been looking into the issue of standards and, although learning materials aren't quite the same as the interpretative layers that Victoria is proposing, I thought that you'd be interested to know what is emerging. Standards for learning technology are a fairly recent development and advice from JISC suggests that the specifications being developed by the IMS Global Learning Consortium (global see http://www.imsproject.org/ ) are the ones to watch. The specifications cover the following areas: - Metadata to describe the learning materials and their structure and location online. - Metadata to descibe the learner(s) (or the audience that the materials are targeted at) and also the producer of the learning content (ie. the academic institution, commercial body etc). - Specifications relating to the interoperability of the learning materials with other systems on the Internet including interoperability of question and answer tests So the standards range from providing a way of assessing the relevance of the materials to a particular learner/course, a way of assessing their quality to their technical delivery (use of HTML, XML, Style sheets, document type descriptions and so on). Hope this helps, Kate Victoria Bryant wrote: > > Edmund > > Thank you for your response to my query. I hadn't really thought of data > standards with regard to highly interpretative data other than that every > comment must be sourced (as it should be in the SMR any way) and > the standards that go with mapping scales etc. I think we > need to consult the people who have been undertaking the Historic > Landscape Characterisations and we are certainly going to be > drawing on that methodology in Worcestershire. > > Victoria > > Date sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:27:40 +0100 > Send reply to: SMRforum is for the circulation of information and general discussion of is <[log in to unmask]> > From: "Lee, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Area character - (was A possible future development - advice want > ed) > To: [log in to unmask] > Dear Edmund > > . > Hello all, > > Victoria's proposed distinction between 'hard' SMR data and > interpretative layers is an interesting one from the DSU Standards > point of view. Traditional applications of standards such as MIDAS > have focussed on the 'hard' factual side of data recording and > retrieval standards. Increasingly however (as Victorias posting > mentions) other sources and approaches are coming to the fore in > terms > of data collection - e.g. landscape characterisation. This is an area > of work that is stressed in the recent Power of Place report from > EH. > > My interest as someone from the standards side of the fence is in > assessing what information needs to be recorded to allow for e.g. > 'area' characterisation over and above the traditional > characterisation of 'monuments' (however loosely or broadly > defined)? > > Any thoughts? Is this an area that FISH should be looking at? Are > any > de facto standards for this sort of information already emerging? > > Edmund Lee > Data Services Unit Standards team > English Heritage > Victoria Bryant > Information and Records Officer > Worcestershire Archaeological Service > Woodbury Hall > University College Worcester, WR2 6AJ > Tel: 01905 855494 > Fax 01905 855035 -- Kate Fernie Research Officer Archaeology Data Service Dept of Archaeology t 0044 (0)1904 433973 University of York f 0044 (0)1904 433939 England YO1 7EP, UK http://ads.ahds.ac.uk e [log in to unmask]