 |
 |
Hi Scott, You're spending rather a lot of time on this list these days!! You're not turning into a closet metadata head are you?! > There is also the argument that once something becomes a standard, its > far harder to evolve than a specification. There are pro's and cons > to this of course; it does bring stability, but at a cost of > flexibility and responsiveness. > > If LOM was still an IMS spec we could go back and chuck some of the > less useful stuff out and replace the DC-like elements with actual > imported DC. That would make it a lot easier to handle! No chance of > that now, however... Well that's not entirely true..... I agree with everything you've said regarding the pros and cons of standardisation of course. However although standards bring stability that doesn't mean they are set in stone forever. My understanding of IEEE standards is that they have a 5 year life-span, i.e. after 5 years they are open for review and potential revision. (Perhaps Dan can correct me if I've got this wrong?) Erik has already opened a wiki to gather requirements for "LOM next": http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/vqwiki-2.5.5/jsp/Wiki?LOMnext I don't know if this is the beginnings of a formal LTSC activity or whether this is informal requirements gathering, there doesn't seem to have been much activity here for a while. Also I think "LOM next" may well be a topic for discussion at this week's LTSC meetings in Alexandria so hopefully Wilbert will be able to report back to us. However this activity progresses, I hope we'll have some opportunity to contribute. > I think its interesting that LOM has effectively standardised a > specification rather than an abstract model; a lot of ISO and IEEE > software/system standards are high-level models which are then > implemented by specifications rather than directly by systems; for > example, the ISO authz standard is just a reference model; XACML and > AZN are the actual specs-with-bindings you can use. I do find the > standardization model for LOM a bit strange I have to say. That's a very good point! I think you're right, everything about LOM is a bit strange :-) However to be fair to those involved in the standardisation of the LOM most of them have admitted that they learned an awful lot along the way and would perhaps have done things differently with the benefit of hindsight. All the best Lorna > > - S > > On 13 May 2005, at 06:43, Pierre Gorissen wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> First of all, thank you for all the answers, even for questions I >> should have asked and hadn't asked yet. >> >> The thing that I still find hard to comprehend though is that IMS >> decides to replace a free for all specification that includes an >> information model, binding document and BPIG with something its >> members have to pay for (again) to acquire. >> I know and understand that the LTSC has spend a lot of additional >> time and effort in the standard, and charges for it because it has to >> have some way of generating a flow of revenue to cover those costs. >> But in the end it means that, once something becomes an IEEE >> standard, it becomes less easily available for >> implementers/users/vendors then it was before. And that is not a good >> thing. >> >> Pierre >> >>>> (and will we have to pay for it?) >>> >>> 'fraid so. There's an ongoing push within the LTSC to come up with a >>> sponsorship solution; companies and institutions can contribute to a >>> fund that will make the standards available to the community for >>> free. >>> >>>> Does this mean IMS can start working on a final migration so that >>>> both bindings are aligned again? >>> >>> I think the plan is to replace the IMS binding with the IEEE one. >>> From the IMS meta-data 1.3 PD: >>> >>> The intention is to replace the IMS Learning Resource Meta-data XML >>> Binding Specification with the IEEE 1484.12.3 Extensible Markup >>> Language (XML) Schema Definition Language Binding for Learning >>> Object Metadata to be approved in 2005. A draft document can be >>> obtained either from >>> http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/IEEE_1484_12_03_d5_changes.pdf or by >>> contacting the IEEE Technical Contact, Wayne Hodgins, email: >>> [log in to unmask] >>> >>> It should mean that IMS Meta-data 1.3 will go from public draft to >>> release status. >>> >>> I will be at the IEEE LOM working group meeting next week, so if >>> there are any further questions, I can raise them. >>> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Op deze e-mail zijn de volgende voorwaarden van toepassing: >> >> http://www.fontys.nl/disclaimer >> >> The above disclaimer applies to this e-mail message. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -- Lorna M. Campbell Assistant Director, CETIS University of Strathclyde +44 (0)141 548 3072 http://www.cetis.ac.uk/