I'm assuming that "secondary metadata" means most metadata that is subjective, and/or specific to a course or other application of a learning resource, rather than objective and about the resource itself).

 

Surely, the process of a teacher adding "secondary metadata" to a resource would in many (all?) cases be called, by most teachers, the creation of a "reading list"?  If so, shouldn't these requirements be covered by the IMS Resources Lists Interoperability standards  - currently at the Working Group Charter stage?

 

As I understand it, IMS-RLI is intended to be a way to wrap up objective, bibliographic-type descriptions (not necessarily of just books or journal articles), or (ideally) references to an authoritative source of such descriptions, in metadata that describes how each one, and the whole package is supposed to be used for a particular course.

 

Howard Noble (he's on this list) is on the IMS-RLI w-g, and will be more currently informed about its' progress.

 

John Paschoud

LSE



	-----Original Message----- 

	From: John Casey {DAICE} [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 

	Sent: Fri 10/10/2003 12:28 

	To: [log in to unmask] 

	Cc: 

	Subject: Secondary Metadata Part1

	

	



	Apologies for cross postings

	

	Dear All

	The question of secondary metadata (tutor notes, suggestions, design ideas,

	reviews etc) has been a vexed one and has thrown up some interesting debate,

	including the question of whether anyone wants it or not. That debate, for

	me, leads to some very interesting places but I don't what to explore them

	just yet....Instead I want ask a simple question and get your opinions.

	

	Secondary Metadata: The project I am working on and the teachers I am

	working with want to use secondary metadata in the context of learning

	objects as an extension of their current practice (in fact they already use

	it in their normal 'real world' non-digital work). But we have some

	problems. The annotations field is not much good for it and a restricted or

	shared vocabulary looks unlikely (or even desirable given the multiplicity

	of pedagogic models out there - from the ever-present transmission model to

	some of the more 'far-out' models, if you are interested in the models this

	link is very handy http://tip.psychology.org/).

	

	So, instead of trying to bend the LOM (Learning Object Metadata) into to

	doing something it was not really designed to do what about this simple, and

	crude, suggestion?

	

	For those that want secondary metadata then they create it in a rich text

	file and place it in an agreed  place within the object. If that is a

	workable way forward then it would be good if the file had a common name

	like say 'notes'. This way all we would be specifying would be where the

	secondary metadata is located in an object and where people should look if

	they wanted to find it. Of course many objects would not have any secondary

	metadata - i.e. it would not be mandatory. But if there was any then it

	would be useful if there was a convention to place it somewhere and give it

	a common name.

	

	What goes inside the secondary metadata file would be totally up to the

	authors / creators etc and if you were interested in what they had to say

	you would have to engage with that on their terms, at least initially, -

	rather like we do in the real world.

	

	So, this secondary metadata file would be just a 'common space' where

	secondary metadata could be placed and read - by people, not machines. If

	this was so then we could say in the annotations field of the LOM "see the

	'notes' file for more information' - some such. If we agreed on a set name

	for the secondary metadata file the presence of that secondary metadata

	information (yes /no) could even be denoted in some way in the LOM - and be

	machine readable.

	

	They way I see it metadata and learning objects exist on a spectrum which at

	the 'sophisticated' end have detailed 'well formed' metadata and may have

	SCORM and Learning Design attributes and characteristics - and very exciting

	and full of potential all that is.

	

	[But the development of these technologies and things like the  integration

	of runtime systems, learning objects, student records and enterprise systems

	and so on is also throwing up (as they do) lots of unforeseen questions

	about the our professional cultures and institutions. See this article for

	interesting ESRC research on this relatively neglected 'systems' aspect of

	our kind of work: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/virtual-universities/] I

	digress....

	

	

	As we go back down through the spectrum of learning objects we move towards

	the 'primitive' end where people are using repositories as very simple

	digital libraries - and getting very immediate benefits, that's where I am

	coming from.

	

	What do you think?

	

	Thanks

	John