Andy, I agree. I think that means we have to turn to the functional requirements as they currently stand (or don't stand) at [1] on the wiki. That could well require iterative returns to the model. The last section on that wiki page contains the synthesis done by Sarah and Diane of the use case work done in 2007-2008. Given that the use case work was to help define functional requirements, there needs to be some discussion around the synthesized items and actual functional requirements derived that might be (but have not been) derived. The section immediately above the use cases is a rough, rough beginning for requirements (more scoping than functional). Use cases etc. on the wiki page have been assigned identifiers (FR1, FR2 & UCFR1, UCFR2) for identification in conversations. All are drafty, drafty, drafty...
If I may be so bold, I do not think there is a great deal more to be usefully derived from these use cases; but, I will wait for conversations around them to start (and lacking a start, will bringing them up myself).
Stuart
[1] http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/Functional_20Requirements
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 6:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes for the AP
> what is the domain of a property like "typical learning
> time"?
>
> My argument was that the domain should be
> ConceptualEducationalActivity,
> which precludes it from being used on other things.
I agree... which is why I think we will revisit this issue when we start talking about specific properties. But for now... I think we have a good enough set of classes in the model for us to proceed.
As I said, next steps are to 1) flesh out written definitions for each of the classes and 2) collect suggestions for the properties we need to associate with each of the classes in the model.
I think step 2) (in particular) needs to be done with functional requirements firmly in mind.
Andy
________________________________
Andy Powell
Research Programme Director
Eduserv
[log in to unmask]
01225 474319 / 07989 476710
www.eduserv.org.uk
efoundations.typepad.com
twitter.com/andypowe11
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson
> Sent: 12 January 2010 13:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes for
> the AP
>
> tis 2010-01-12 klockan 05:50 -0800 skrev Stuart Sutton:
> > -----Original Message----
> > From: Andy Powell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:10 AM
> > To: Stuart Sutton; [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes for
> the AP
> >
> >
> > I think we slightly disagree here... you see those "properties of
> > interest" as being "inherent in the resource"; I see them as being
> > inherent in the *intended use* of the resource (even in those cases
> > where a resource has been designed with a learning objective in
> mind).
> >
> > STUART>> Andy, I think we can live quite nicely with this
> > disagreement unless you think otherwise. Since the purpose of the
> > resource that is designed with a learning objective in mind is to
> > define intended use(s), I think that makes them 'inherent' to that
> > resource, you think not. I struggle to see an adverse consequence to
> > our disagreeing on this point.
>
> Well, I suppose the important issue is: what is the domain of the
> relevant properties? At least that was my point of entry into this
> discussion: what is the domain of a property like "typical learning
> time"?
>
> My argument was that the domain should be
> ConceptualEducationalActivity,
> which precludes it from being used on other things.
>
> So, the agreement or disagreement *does* have practical consequences, I
> think.
>
> /Mikael
>
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 01225 474319 / 07989 476710
> > www.eduserv.org.uk
> > efoundations.typepad.com
> > twitter.com/andypowe11
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stuart Sutton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 12 January 2010 00:19
> > > To: Andy Powell; [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: RE: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes
> for
> > > the AP
> > >
> > > Thanks, Andy, this clarifies a good deal. Just a few comments
> below.
> > >
> > > Stuart
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Andy Powell
> > > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:41 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes
> for
> > > the AP
> > >
> > > ANDY>> From my point of view... the focus on 'activity' is because
> for
> > > the vast bulk of resources (all resources apart from those
> specifically
> > > designed with a learning objective in mind) it is the 'activity'
> that
> > > determines the educational attributes associated with the resource
> - a
> > > resource that is 'difficult' in the context of one usage, may be
> easy
> > > in the context of another. This is also true for all those
> resources
> > > that were specifically designed with an educational purpose in
> mind,
> > > because each of those resources can be taken and used in a
> completely
> > > different context from that originally intended.
> > >
> > > STUART>> Andy, I don't take issue with any of this. I don't take
> issue
> > > with the fact that "it is the 'activity' [that] determines the
> > > educational attributes associated with a resource." But, tucked in
> > > your parenthetical are all those resources "designed with a
> learning
> > > objective in mind"--a fairly vast body of resources that has
> occupied
> > > metadata generation people for a long time and are of great concern
> to
> > > teachers and learners wanting resource that can be used as-in or be
> > > repurposed (like your example lesson plan use by the student
> learning
> > > how to become a teacher). I just needed assurance that the model
> > > accommodates these "designed" resources.
> > >
> > > ANDY>> So, as a slightly contrived example, the 'lesson plan' that
> is
> > > an item of EducationalActivityDocumentation for a K12 teacher may
> be
> > > treated as a Resource by a student on a university undergraduate
> course
> > > module for education students learning how to become teachers - for
> > > them it might just be an example lesson plan that they are asked to
> > > critique.
> > >
> > > STUART>> Yes, acknowledged above.
> > >
> > > ANDY>>You are right to say that "the resources to be covered [by
> the
> > > AP] are not activities"... but it is the educational activities
> that
> > > determine a large proportion of what we want to say about each
> > > resource. We are primarily interested in the properties associated
> > > with *use*, not with the properties that are inherent to the
> resources
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > STUART>> Yes, but again with the caveat of the resource
> "specifically
> > > designed with a learning objective in mind" where some subset the
> > > properties of interest actually are inherent in the resource as
> they
> > > would be in a textbook designed around learning activities and
> intended
> > > for use by students with learning difficulties.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > Andy Powell
> > > Research Programme Director
> > > Eduserv
> > >
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > 01225 474319 / 07989 476710
> > > www.eduserv.org.uk
> > > efoundations.typepad.com
> > > twitter.com/andypowe11
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: DCMI Education Community [[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf
> > > Of Stuart Sutton [[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 11 January 2010 15:06
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes
> for
> > > the AP
> > >
> > > Mikael, I am still working on understanding Andy's earlier posts
> today
> > > (including the revised model graphic) but would say here that I do
> not
> > > agree with you in a _general assertion_ that it "is somewhat
> > > nonsensical to attach to the typical learning resource (the book,
> or
> > > the film, or whatever)". Textbooks and lesson plans (which I still
> > > contend are not "activities" but rather blueprints for activities)
> are
> > > usually designed around projected uses and frequently make all
> kinds of
> > > assertions around things like education Level, audience, difficult,
> and
> > > typical learning time--all of which are captured in metadata
> describing
> > > those resources. You may actually be saying the same thing when
> you
> > > say "typical", but I am not certain. I do agree with you that it
> may
> > > well be nonsensical to attach such properties to just any resource-
> -
> > > e.g., what is the typical learning time of "Gone with the Wind"?
> That
> > > is what started my whole push last month to talk about this model
> > > because there is a distinction for me between just _any_ resource
> where
> > > it is probably nonsensical to attach these properties and learning
> > > resources where it is not.
> > >
> > > I am struggling now with what seems a myopic focus on "activity"
> when
> > > key resources to be covered are not activities. However, the key
> at
> > > the moment to my struggle may rest in fleshing out what Andy means
> by
> > > "Resource" and the usedAsPartOf relationships. If Resource
> encompasses
> > > things like the lesson plan and the textbook (not just any book),
> then
> > > I am comfortable for the moment. I would be even more comfortable
> with
> > > Resource in Andy's revised model being renamed Learning Resource to
> > > differentiate the textbook in 8th year English from "Gone with the
> > > Wind". This distinction is what triggered the entity called
> "resource"
> > > in my first proposal with a utilizes relationship between the
> learning
> > > resource and the "typical" resource.
> > >
> > > Stuart
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson
> > > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:52 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: DC-Ed Application Profile: Defining resource classes
> for
> > > the AP
> > >
> > > Here, I don't agree. As I said in my original mail, I agree the
> > > ActivityInstance (i.e. the actual Event) is probably out of scope
> here,
> > > but I do believe the ConceptualEducationalActivity is *in* scope.
> > >
> > > Why? Because I'm arguing that there is there many of the
> educational
> > > metadata properties make sense. An activity can have a Typical
> Learning
> > > Time, which i think is somewhat nonsensical to attach to the
> typical
> > > learning resource (the book, or the film, or whatever). Similarly,
> the
> > > difficulty, audience etc depends more on the activity than on the
> > > resource.
> > >
> > > My argument was essentially that all of the properties in LOM
> section 5
> > > Educational belong to a ConceptualEducationalActivity, which in
> LOM's
> > > case is not explicit in the model (but can be made so).
> > >
> > > /Mikael
> >
|
