Hi there,

I'm not sure there's much I can add to the debate other than general  
agreement with the position put forward by Sarah and Phil.

One thing I would say however is that in contrast to Stuart I don't  
remember there being an agreed consensus at the meeting in Madrid.  I  
do remember Stuart putting forward the position that he has recently  
reiterated but I don't remember there being general agreement on  
this.  In fact I seem to recall that the discussions became somewhat  
circular and we ended up agreeing that there was no current  
agreement!  As I see it one function of the development of the domain  
model should be to help us to surface where specific points of  
contention lie and it seems to be doing just that!  There are many  
specific issues that require considerably more thought and  
clarification but I hope we're making progress.

Lorna



On 11 Dec 2009, at 09:54, Phil Barker wrote:

> Stuart, you quote me selectively (I know it is a fault of mine to  
> insert
> parenthetic clauses which obscure what would otherwise be simple
> sentences).
>
> I said  "previous experience [...] is that it is not possible to  
> define
> the class of 'learning resource' [...] except to say that they are
> resource that may be used in learning education and training."  I  
> think
> this is evident from the outcome of previous discussions like this  
> one.
> I think the reason is that learning education and training covers  
> such a
> vast area that works in one part will entirely exclude others.
>
> We agree that any resource can become a learning resource; there are
> many ways this can happen, use is one, adding metadata to an existing
> resource is another. The metadata or use of a resource are distinct  
> from
> the resource, so in neither case can you say the resource has an
> intentional purpose related to learning (since the intent is separate
> from the resource).  I think the best approach is to be clear that you
> are describing the use of the resource (intentional or actual) and not
> (necessarily) some inherent property of the resource. So I still  
> prefer
> the definition "a learning resource is any resource that may be used  
> in
> learning, education or training". (And I think that in practice the
> difference between this and "any resource" is not worth arguing over.)
>
> Phil
>
> Stuart Sutton wrote:
>> Phil, can you say more.  I am unclear how "it is not possible to  
>> define the class of 'learning resources' or 'learning objects'  
>> except to say that they are resources" and at the same time say  
>> that an alternative to class restriction is to "be clear about when  
>> it is appropriate to use them..."?  It seems to me that these  
>> alternatives require the same degree of "knowing" except that we  
>> can frame the former (class definition) in ways useful to machines  
>> in an RDF/Semantic Web world and cannot do so with the latter where  
>> the advice sits is narrative usage guides, etc.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]  
>> On Behalf Of Phil Barker
>> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:59 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: DC-Education Application Profile Task Group webinar:  
>> dates required
>>
>> Hello All,
>> I'm sorry won't be able to join the conference call next week, it's
>> looking like there could be some very interesting discussion. I
>> generally agree with Stuart on the need for firm definitions for the
>> clouds, lines and boxes. I'm less convinced by the argument in the
>> paragraph below, which I think is an argument for the case that
>> educational metadata is only applicable to resources that are
>> educational by design. Previous experience (most notably with the  
>> LOM,
>> but I think ISO MLR may be heading the same way) is that it is not
>> possible to define the class of "learning resources" or "learning
>> objects" except to say that they are resources (i.e. things that  
>> may be
>> identified) that may be used in learning, education or training. Yes
>> this is rather inclusive, and no you wouldn't want to use DC-Ed  
>> elements
>> on every resource in that class; but no one is saying that you  
>> should.
>> Perhaps as an alternative restricting the class of resources to which
>> DC-Ed applies we should instead be clear about when it is  
>> appropriate to
>> use them, i.e. when there is some sensible information which they  
>> might
>> convey.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> Stuart Sutton wrote:
>>
>>> Now, it also seems quite clear to me (maybe not to others) that the
>>> Community was explicit in Madrid that we were interested in only  
>>> those
>>> properties that make statements defining the educational purposing  
>>> and
>>> use **of a resource**. That makes that resource a member of a  
>>> specific
>>> class-those things in the world that have been purposed in such a  
>>> way
>>> that we can make these kinds of assertions, things that have been
>>> purposed for use in teaching and learning. Therefore, Sarah, I take
>>> issue with your assertion that we are interested at all in using  
>>> this
>>> AP to describe "many other types of resources; as long as someone
>>> **wants* *to describe something educational about those resources or
>>> their use (my emphasis)." Until that resource has been purposed for
>>> teaching and learning, it's just another thing in the world  
>>> regardless
>>> of what someone **wants**. All things in the world might be used at
>>> one time or another in an educational context. For example, I may
>>> **want** to take U.S. President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
>>> to class for some education purpose. But just wanting to do so isn't
>>> enough. When I imbue that Address with educational purpose, it is no
>>> longer just another thing in the world but, for me, has joined the
>>> class of learning resource. So, standing alone as a class of things
>>> (speeches or Presidential addresses), Lincoln's Address is not of  
>>> the
>>> class of concern to this AP regardless of its rich capacity to  
>>> inform.
>>> I can describe Lincoln's Address quite nicely, thank you, with just
>>> those descriptive properties we said were not of concern to us. But,
>>> if instead of just **wanting**, I contextualize the address to meet
>>> educational ends (i.e., I purpose it as a learning resource), then I
>>> can start making the kinds of statement about it with the properties
>>> of concern to this AP.
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
> registered under charity number SC000278.

--
Lorna M. Campbell
JISC CETIS Assistant Director
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44141 548 3072
Skype: lorna120768

The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in  
Scotland, number SC015263.