Hi, My 2p, Technical.location: I think it should be made clear by IMS/LOM whether this is intended to be a value that can be used directly to obtain a representation of the resource or does it allow for indirect access? "A location or a method that resolves to a location of the resource." I assume from the above description that they would allow the use of URI, DOI, GUID etc Relation We do not currently use this category of metadata, but I intend to look at the use of this particularly where the values can be generated automatically e.g. IsPartOf, Replaces etc because I can see that this information would be directly usable when aggregating/disaggregating packages. Regards, Ben ----------------------------------------------- Dr Ben Ryan HLSI Software Development Manager University of Huddersfield Tel: 01484 473587 E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> ----------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Phil Barker [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 24 February 2003 10:23 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: UKCMF] NJ = Nik Jewel LMC = Lorna Campbell > NJ> I have a few questions that I hope you won't mind me putting to you. I > raise these more to check my understanding than anything else. > > LMC>Thanks very much for your comments. This is exactly the kind of input > we need to refine the framework and ensure it meets the communities > requirements. > > NJ> 1. Re. 4.3 technical.location - This is listed as a mandatory element > with preferably URL or URI. I appreciate that IMS/IEEE specs are > designed for digital resources, however many SCs have offline resources > that they are going to want/be asked to catalogue using the UKCMF. Do > you think it will be possible to broaden this beyond URL/URI and (for > someone? to) provide guidelines on other identifiers? > > LMC> Hmm, as far as I know the Learning Object Metadata standard is > designed only for use with digital objects. From IEEE 1484.12.1-2002 (LOM) standard section 1.1 Scope (first paragraph) "For this standard a learning object is defined as any entity -- digital or non-digital -- that may be used for learning, education or training" [you could never accuse the LOM of not being abitious!] > NJ>The reason why I ask is that dc.relation.references is vital to us. We > currently use it with our PedR to express the relationship between a > review or summary and the article/book/whatever that the review or > summary is of. > > Expanding that to the domain of LOs rather than PedR for which the UKCMF > is intended, is it intended that the relation should be the other way > (assuming dropping 'references' is deliberate); that is, that an LO > should point outwards to a review or case study or whatever related to > it? I can see a certain logic in that. > > However, and this is a second question, I kind of get the impression > that this element is not intended to be used in this way; that is, all > the documentation points to the relations between two LOs and not > between LOs and reviews/case studies. If that is the case, how should > these relations be expressed? I imagine the answer is that this is not > in the domain of the metadata for an LO but in the domain of the > metadata for the review or case study that may be better described with > DC anyway. Does that make sense or am I just rambling? > > LMC> No you're not rambling at all, that's a perfectly valid point and > you're absolutely right. My understanding is that the "references" field > is designed to describe the relationship between LOs and not to describe > the relationship between a LO and a reference to it's use. But a full case study of the use of a learning object could be a learning object in itself (in a staff development context). [That's not to say I think it makes much sense to use LOM to descibe reviews and case studies, but given that the LOM relation element is mapped to DC.Relation, it would be strange if a DC.Relation "References" element in a metadata instance describing a review of a learning recource couldn't be paired to a LOM Relation "isReferencedBy" in the record describing the learning resource.] This is the sort of issue which it is useful to discuss in as wide a forum as possible to try to establish what common practice is. I would be very interested in hearing how other people use this element. > This is the type > of information that is often referred to as secondary metadata or secondary > usage metadata. User reviews, use contexts and histories of use are other > examples. Everyone agrees that this kind of information will be invaluable > for users of learning objects but there are currently no metadata schemes > that deal directly with this. You can use the LOM annotation field or > DublinC ore as you mention but this is a rather minimalist solution. > > The new IMS Metadata Special Interest Group discussed the question of > secondary metadata this morning but recognise that this is a difficult > issue to deal with. As a first step the SIG are proposing to gather use > cases regarding the use of secondary metadata which will help us to > identify user requirements in this area. This is a first step towards > preliminary research so don't expect a new specification to appear next > week! I have agreed to contribute a use case on behalf of JISC / CETIS > and plan to contact the CETIS Metadata SIG for input. So if you have a > particular use case or scenario in mind make a note of it now and keep an > eye on the CETIS MD SIG mailing list. > mmm, I'm in two minds here. I think that recording how learning resources have be used and why is valuable, and if it can be done in an agreed form then that would be great. Also, I think there is danger of trying to make the metadata do too much: it's already defined as data about more-or-less anything, I wouldn't like to add "and how it is used for teaching and learning" to that. Furthermore, to me a case study or a review is more than data (secondary or otherwise) about a resource: it is an information resource in it's own right, and it is an information resource which is related to the learning object. Phil. -- Phil Barker Learning Technology Advisor ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327 Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/