 |
 |
Ok, thanks Dan. I'll leave -2002 in there, as it's the primary target currently. LOM instances are discussed in .1 as well, so I think we're right in using that term. So, this is the version we want to submit to the IEEE! Wayne, the ball is in your hands. Title: Standard for Resource Description Framework (RDF) Vocabulary for IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Data Elements Purpose: There is an increasing demand for definitions of IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) data element semantics which allow the expression of IEEE LOM instances in applications using Semantic Web technologies such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF). For some data elements, this expression can be achieved using existing, stable RDF vocabularies. The purpose of this Standard is to define the semantics of data elements not covered by such vocabularies. This Standard forms an important basis for making IEEE LOM useful in this larger metadata context. Scope: This Standard defines a Resource Description Framework (RDF) vocabulary to express the semantics of data elements of the LOMv1.0 base schema of IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (IEEE Std 1484-12.1-2002). The Standard makes use of modeling primitives from the RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDF Schema) and the Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM). The Standard includes the specification of RDF terms, including properties, classes, vocabularies, syntax encoding schemes and vocabulary encoding schemes, covering the semantics of data elements defined in IEEE LOM. The Standard includes the specification of URIs to use to identify the terms. The Standard does not define new terms for data elements that can be appropriately expressed using sufficiently stable, existing RDF vocabularies (notably Dublin Core). This Standard does not address the construction of conforming IEEE LOM instances using RDF technology. Title: Recommended Practice for Expressing IEEE Learning Object Metadata Instances Using the Dublin Core Abstract Model Purpose: There is an increasing demand for interoperable definitions of Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) metadata terms and IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) data elements which allow these to be used together in metadata instances. This Recommended Practice addresses this requirement by describing how to use the definitions of metadata terms defined by the IEEE Standard for Resource Description Framework (RDF) Vocabulary for IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Data Elements (IEEE Std 1484.12.x-200x) and DCMI metadata terms together in Dublin Core metadata instances. This represents a partial and short-term solution to the overall issue of metadata interoperability in learning, education, and training contexts. The Recommended Practice also aims to inform the longer-term process of trying to align the abstract models of IEEE LOM and DCAM, as it will provide an analysis of fundamental incompatibilities between the two models. Scope: This Recommended Practice describes how to construct IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata (LOM) (IEEE Std 1484-12.1-2002) instances using the Dublin Core Abstract Model (DCAM). It describes how to use the definitions of metadata terms defined by the IEEE Standard for Resource Description Framework (RDF) Vocabulary for IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Data Elements (IEEE Std 1484.12.x-200x) together with DCMI metadata terms for expressing IEEE LOM conforming instances as DCAM description sets. This Recommended Practice does not address the issue of expressing DCAM description sets or DCMI metadata terms using LOM data elements. /Mikael fre 2007-11-30 klockan 10:44 -0500 skrev Daniel Rehak: > Sorry for the late response -- I've been on the road all week. > > I did another pass -- editorial > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddgkwq55_0g74bwm > > I was trying to do proper IEEE Std citations. The IEEE editors will > probably nit pick more on this, but its closer to their style. > > I did put the year in the citations, e.g., 1484-12-1.2002. One thing > to decide is if this standard will cover only the 2002 version or any > version of 1474.12.1. In the actual standard we will need to cite if > we are using particular versions or not of any other standard. > > The big question I have is about "LOM instances". The PAR cites > 1484.12.1, which is the data schema. XML instances are defined in > 1482.12.3. I assume we want to map generic binding independent LOM > (.1) to binding/serialization independent RDF. I don't know if > readers will get confused over this and think its about how to embed > an XML encoding of LOM in an XML encoding of RDF, or if we need to be > explicit in the scope that this is binding independent. > > - Dan > > On Nov 26, 2007 9:02 AM, Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Google doc > > > > -- > > <[log in to unmask]> > > > > Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:00:01 -0800 > > Subject: PAR phrasing > > I've shared a document with you called "Untitled": > > http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddgkwq55_0g74bwm&invite=ghg3hgb > > > > It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above. > > --- > > > > > > > -- <[log in to unmask]> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose