Hello Robin,
thanks very much for your post, you've said a lot that I didn't get
round to in my reply to Jay. I would certainly agree with your order of
preference for points 1-3. I think point 4 needs to be considered on its
merits case by case, you provide a good example of this with rights
expression. The facts that there exist good rights expression languages
which interoperate with rights management systems needs to be considered
separately but alongside the merits of LOM interoperability. I'm not
sure whether putting ODRL /inside/ the LOM rights section is a help or
hindrance (compared to having a seperate ODRL section outside the LOM
XML) when it comes to interoperable rights expression. Like you I don't
see any point in trying to reproduce a DREL within the LOM. On the other
hand, I would need a lot of convincing that the educational section of a
LOM instance should be replaced or even supplemented with metadata
outside the <lom>...</lom> element.
Regards, Phil.
Robin Skelcey wrote:
> I'd suggest that as a point of interoperability principle it is always
> better - whenever possible - to go as close as possible to IEEE LOM, while
> interoperable LOM instances remains the aim. I believe we should take care
> to ensure flexibility does not become the mutually-exclusive enemy of
> interoperability.
>
> Using this approach, the order of preference of techniques for including
> information would be:
> 1. use default LOM vocabularies, if appropriate
> 2. if not, use vocab langstrings with alternative sources, as in UK-LOM core
> (ideally with machine-locatable and parsable sources, in VDEX format)
> 3. if not appropriate (either because the field does not exist in LOM, or
> the field value needs to be hierarchical), use custom classifications, again
> with locatable VDEX sources, perhaps with a custom “purpose” value in a
> (locatable) vocabulary.
> 4. only if 1, 2 or 3 do not apply, use valid and properly name-spaced
> elements at the nearest appropriate LOM element, such as adding ODRL within
> the rights section.
...
> In the end I guess it depends on one’s priority. Using an external schema –
> whether slotted into an XML instance of a LOM record or not – may make a
> record semantically precise, and clear to a human reader, or a software
> system designed specifically to expect such an arrangement. That’s all very
> well as far as it goes, and there may well be instances where that is
> appropriate (and I would agree that rights information is one of them – the
> last thing we need is a new LOM-specific DRM language, and ideally when that
> does happen, it should be globalised, generalised, and formally incorporated
> as far up the standards body tree as is politically possible).
...
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
|