Hi Juanita,
These are my personal feelings on our role in relation to influencing IMS. This
is not an "official" viewpoint and I am not speaking on behalf of either CETIS
or the metadata SIG as a whole. So you can all feel free to agree or disagree
with me!
I believe that it is possible to influence IMS but this is obviously going to
be easier to do if the working groups are still active and the specifications
still under development. For example IMS are currently developing a Learning
Design specification which CETIS are actively contributing to. The problem with
metadata is that the working group is, I believe, quiescent. This means that
the WG are not meeting and the spec is not undergoing any major revisions. If
anyone knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong. Another issue with IMS
metadata is that it is based on the IEEE LOM. As far as I know the LOM is en
route to becoming a fixed international standard so is unlikely to change
dramatically in the near future. Clearly influencing IEEE at this late stage
would be difficult.
Having said all that, although both IMS Metadata and IEEE LOM may appear to be
fairly set at present, I think we can still play an important role in
influencing these bodies. These specifications and standards are not set in
stone forever, there will be other versions at some stage in the future.
Consequently I think it is very important for us to feed our experiences of
using the specifications back to IMS. We may not be able to have much impact on
the IMS metadata specification in the short term but that is not to say that we
do not have the opportunity to influence future versions of the spec. Standards
and specifications may evolve slowly but they still need feedback to change and
move forward.
That's my tuppence worth!
Bye for now
Lorna
Juanita Foster-Jones wrote:
> Lorna
>
> it is reassuring to find someone echoing my thoughts. This is the very issue
> I tried to raise at the first CETIS meeting, when Andy Heath was present,
> particularly in relation to us, the user group, being able to suggest
> improvements and know that these suggestions will be heard.
>
> I think it needs to be clear what emphasis is put on our views, whether or
> not IMS will listen and to what extent. And are other IMS users around the
> world happy with these elements?
>
> If you look at the Dublin Core educational set you can see it uses a minimum
> number of the educational elements. I think the ones they have chosen are
> the ones most easily implemented, and have a real practical value to users.
> The others are to some extent impractical, either due to vocabulary, of the
> vagueness of what they describing.
>
> I would be interested to hear on how you get on with this Lorna
>
> Juanita
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lorna M Campbell [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 24 January 2002 11:15
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: survey - the number of elements
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Quick mail to follow on from the useless/unused elements volunteered by
> > Phil,
> > Juanita and Kate. Four of these elements; semantic density, interactivity
> > level,
> > intended end user role and difficulty; are take from the LOM/IMS
> > "educational"
> > subset. Phil, Juanita and Kate's comments don't surprise me but I still
> > find this
> > very worrying. Given that the LOM was created primarily to describe
> > learning
> > objects I think it is of significant concern that it is so weak or
> > impractical in
> > the very area it purports to describe. This is something I've been aware
> > of for some
> > time. Users adopt IMS because they know it is designed to describe
> > educational
> > resources but then when they implement the spec the frequently discover
> > that the
> > educational fields are less than appropriate, to say the least. I can't
> > offer any
> > solutions to this problem but I think it is a serious issue that the SIG
> > should
> > highlight and report back to CETIS and ultimately IMS.
> >
> > Bye
> > Lorna
> >
> > Phil Barker wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All,
> > > I meant to follow up on this last week but didn't have time, so
> > apologies for
> > > the delayed reply.
> > >
> > > I think that it is important we find out some information on what isn't
> > being
> > > used and why, as Juanita suggests. But it is also quite difficult: a
> > simple
> > > list of all the elements in IMS (with a tick box next to each and space
> > for a
> > > line of explanation) would run to several pages. I shall, however
> > include a
> > > question asking whether the respondent could provide us with a mapping
> > of their
> > > element set to IMS, which would allow us to extract this information.
> > >
> > > We could focus our attention on a few elements and ask whether they are
> > being
> > > used. I think this would complement Aida's suggestion of asking for an
> > estimate
> > > of how many are used and which group they come from.
> > >
> > > So a quick question: are there any elements in IMS that you suspect are
> > not
> > > being widely used?
> > > I'll lead with semantic density.
> > >
> > > I look forward to hearing any other suggestions.
> > >
> > > Regards, Phil.
> > >
> > > Dawn Holland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello
> > > >
> > > > I think Aida' s suggestions for more precise information on which IMS
> > > > elements are being used or not is a good idea.
> > > >
> > > > However I have a vague recollection from the CETIS meeting in November
> > (and
> > > > please correct me if I am wrong!) that going further and actually
> > collecting
> > > > the individual elements not being used was suggested.
> > > >
> > > > For example, if the survey showed that x% of respondents didn't use
> > the
> > > > Educational Element "semantic density", this information could then be
> > > > passed to IMS as evidence to suggest alternations or changes to the
> > overall
> > > > schema.
> > > >
> > > > What does anyone else think?
> > > >
> > > > Dawn
> > > >
> > > > Dawn Holland
> > > > Metadata Project Officer (Maternity Cover)
> > > > The Jennie Lee Library
> > > > The Open University
> > > > Walton Hall
> > > > Milton Keynes
> > > > MK7 6AA
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Phil Barker Learning Technology Advisor
> > > ICBL, Department of Computing and Electrical Engineering
> > > Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> > > Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
> > > Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
> >
> > --
> > Lorna M. Campbell
> > Research Fellow
> > Centre for Academic Practice
> > University of Strathclyde
> > 0141 548 3072
> > [log in to unmask]
--
Lorna M. Campbell
Research Fellow
Centre for Academic Practice
University of Strathclyde
0141 548 3072
[log in to unmask]
|