On 15/04/11 12:20, Patrick Lockley wrote:
>>> OAI-ORE. I agree with the need to describe aggregations in some form
>>> vs. individual objects and OAI-ORE is worth considering. But I
>>> believe putting an aggregation into an OAI-ORE format should be
>> pretty
>>> straight forward. The bigger question I have relates to what happens
>>> when you have multiple different aggregations. How can you relate
>> the
>>> use of one piece of content in one aggregation to its use in another?
>>> Do we end up with multiple ORE aggregations? Do we try to build an
>>> uber aggregation? Is just storing individual relations in a
>>> repository better than trying to maintain the whole (which might be
>>> harder)? OAI-ORE is all about the aggregation, and doing things like
>>> exchange, deposit, preservation, ... on the whole.
>>>
>> Yep, interesting question. Our proposal is focused, and I think
>> correctly, on solving the problem we've encountered, which is that OER
>> records in the form of those found within repositories such as Jorum
>> are
>> insufficiently described in terms of the constituent resources from
>> which they are comprised - they are in fact an aggregation of resources
>> and so should be described as such, for which purpose OAI-ORE is a good
>> fit.
>>
>> How you'd describe the relations of a single resource to the
>> aggregations of which it is part is a different matter. I wonder,
>> actually, if there would be sufficient use cases for this to be a
>> necessity, and whether to attempt to do so would actually then add
>> complexity where none is needed. Certainly, it is not part of the
>> specific need which we would intend to address.
> It goes deeper than this though.
> ORE is just one way of suggesting linked materials.
> The Openlearn feeds include relevant resources using an enclosure tag - and in the Xpert database, that content is stored. Now if we could get into those PDFs and find pictures, we could provide those resources in the results too. Then a more formal method of understanding the relationship between content becomes really handy.
> Jorum does a similar thing with a lot of pieces broken into parts, but then sadly no dc:relation or indication of associated pieces.
> So there is lots of scope for providing more granular information on learning objects - and this would be great for a "remixing service".
>
Absolutely right - a formal and common resource descriptor is, in my
opinion also, very much a necessity for that kind of granular
information - our proposal suggesting LOM for this task, DC being a good
alternative. However, that seems to be a point of contention here, with
some people not liking the idea of using formal, standardised ontologies.
--
Alex Lydiate
Software& Systems Developer
LTEO - WH5.39
University of Bath
01225 383576
|