-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: UKCMF
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:55:28 -0500
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
CC: [log in to unmask]
Hi Nik,
(Phil please cc to MD SIG mailing list please, thanks.)
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. If you require identifiers for
non digital objects you would probably need to extend the application
profile. However it's important to remember that the UKCMF represents a
basic element set, a starting point that others can build on. We don't
necessarily expect the UKCMF to meet all the requirements of the RDN / LTSN
as is, it's very likely that it will require modification. In terms of who
should do this I would suggest that the RDN / LTSN community should develop
their own application profile taking the UKCMF as a starting point. CETIS
and LTScotland can also input comments, advice and guidance. I realise
this is a bit of a fudge of an answer so I'll see if I can some up with
something more sensible once we're back in the UK.
2. Re 7.1 relation.kind - The list here does not include 'references'.
Is this an oversight or deliberate? I've looked at the CanCore
guidelines and it is included there.
LMC> My apologies, that's a typo, the omission of "references" is
unintentional. That's our fault for trying to rush the document out as
quickly as possible. We'll release an update with this vocabulary
corrected.
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. 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.
NJ> 3. The $64,000 question: What's the plan regarding the educational
metadata vocabs? Is there a plan? Is there an ETA? Don't take this
the wrong way, I'm just completely ignorant of whatever developments or
planning is going on here amongst the metadata community.
As an aside, Phil will know that we adopted FAILTE vocabs initially for
this, but will switch now to the LOM ones and try to interpret them as
best we can for our cataloguers/community (there is no wasted effort
here as we have been holding off doing any cataloguing of these fields
whilst things have been up in the air regarding RDN-LTSN
interoperability). Or does that not sound sensible as a plan?
LMC> This sounds like a very sensible plan. The UKCMF is based on common
practice and since very few people have effectively implemented the LOM
education fields there is very little common practice for us to base our
recommendations on. That was our rationale for making these fields
optional rather than mandatory. However we would always encourage users to
implemet these fields as this is the only way we will be able to assess
their applicability and effectiveness. In terms of research going on
within the MD community I believe Dublin Core are conducting ongoing
research into educational elements (perhaps Andy could comment on this?),
in addition ISO SC 36 are looking into this issue. The IMS MD SIG have
decided to try to monitor this work and to encourage people who have
implemented these fields to submit applications profiles in order to assess
the use of these fields. More on this later.
NJ> Thanks and sorry to bombard you. I'll probably have more questions in
future.
LMC> Hope this helps to address some of your queries. Please keep the
comments coming, as we really need to encourage this debate.
All the best
Lorna
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Assistant Director
Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS)
Centre for Academic Practice, University of Strathclyde
+44 (0)141 548 3072
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
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/
