 |
 |
Hi all, A useful contribution from Pierre-Julien Guay, who is involved in the ISO Metadata for Learning Resources work (something which I don't know much about, and which I have failed to find a homepage for): ------ Message transféré De : Pierre-Julien Guay <[log in to unmask]> Date : Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:53:44 -0400 À : <[log in to unmask]> Conversation : DC-Education Application Profile: update + feedback requested Objet : Re: DC-Education Application Profile: update + feedback requested Hello all, I'm new to this discussion but would like to share these points: It is my personal opinion that the upcoming DC-Education Application Profile (introduction of educational descriptors in DC and the work on collating recommended vocabularies) will be a great step toward interoperability with other educational description schemas, namely LOM and the ISO MLR. By interoperability, I mean the ability to share a common basic set of descriptors among repositories with minimal conversion efforts thus being able to process federated search on common criteria. I notice a similarity between the fundamental work on DC abstraction and the extensibility based approach we have taken for MLR to accommodate new stakeholders' needs. It is necessary to explicitly and unambiguously state principles, construction rules and data structure. In my view, such a work would not result in constraining possible applications but leave them opened to accommodate applicaiton based on community needs (and at the same time avoiding the debate about what a learning object really is!). Following are some comments about proposed educational elements: ---- 1) in introducing LOM Educational.LearningResourceType, you may want to consider the ambiguity in its vocabulary which may address both the nature of the learning resource and its pedagogical application. In the MLR, we proposed a split between two elements: Resource Type : Collection, Dataset, Interactive resource, Moving image, Physical object, Service, Software, Sound, Still image, Text, Website Pedagogical Type : Learning measurement, Problem solving Activity, Tool, Display, Description, Explanation 2) having very limited FRBR related experience, I found it very subjective to document item such as InteractivityLevel, SemanticDensity and Educational. Difficulty and seriously wonder about their relevance and interoperability. 3) Educational.TypicalAgeRange. This is probably one of the most important federated search criteria. From an interoperability perspective, at the time of data sharing, education level should be translated into numerical age values that can be processed without ambiguities (MLR has two elements: minimumAge and maximumAge). But, of course, this doesn't need to be DC embedded. 4) In our editorial work, Norm Friesen and myself have carefully reviewed actual LOM definitions for both elements and vocabulary values. You may want to give a look at those definitions for DC candidates. The resulting documents are publicly available. 36N1524 Text of ISO/IEC CD2 19788-1, ITLET - Metadata for Learning Resources - Part 1. Framework 36N1312 Working Draft (WD2) for ISO/IEC 19788-2 - Metadata for Learning Resources - Part 2. Data Elements http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=1056984&objAction=brows e&sort=name and WG4_N0185_Proposed_other_parts_for_ISO_IEC_19788 (PDF Package) http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=5791404&objAction=brows e&sort=name Hope this can be useful, Regards, -- Pierre-Julien Guay Vitrine Technologie-Éducation http://ntic.org/ (514) 332-3000, poste 6026 ------ Fin du message transféré -- Sarah Currier Co-Moderator, Dublin Core Education Community Product Manager, Intrallect Ltd. http://www.intrallect.com 2nd Floor, Regent House Blackness Road Linlithgow EH49 7HU United Kingdom Tel: +44 870 234 3933 Mob: +44 (0)7980855801 E-mail: [log in to unmask] --