Julia, sorry to be a few days responding ... I'm in the
process of relocating from Syracuse University to the
University of Washington. First, let me say that I concur
with Jon's assessment of the distinctions between the IEEE/IMS
and DC goals--particularly in terms of "maximising
interoperability across interest domains". Both EdNA and
GEM (through the U.S. Dept. of Education) are investment
members in IMS; both have been working closely with the
IEEE/IMS/ARIADNE metadata effort with a keen sense of EdNA
and GEM's solid roots in, and continuing commitment to, the
Dublin Core.
I also concur in Jon's statement that DC and IMS are _not_
irreconcilable. In fact, GEM has done a complete mapping of
the GEM element set to the IMS/IEEE scheme (pre-August 6th
meeting). I am assuming that EdNA is doing the same given the
finilization of the LOM Scheme and an XML binding. GEM
currently has the capability of exporting GEM metadata records
from the GEM Gateway database in an IMS/XML binding. Jon
notes that in the DC-Education deliberations, the "IMS work
[should be] given appropriate consideration." In the short
term, that consideration might focus on the semantic aspects
of the "educational" category of the IMS metadata--the _only_
category that distinguishes IMS educational metadata from
the descriptive aspects of web-based resources in general.
Jon closes by noting that the education community in
Australia is looking to resource description "beyond the
minimalist implementation adopted by EdNA" and that a
key to that effort rests with "a combination of qualifiers
and well-defined educational elements [that] will deliver
the kind of specification that will work best and move the
EdNA Metadata Standard forward to a position that enables
a high degree of interoperability." Again, I agree
completely. From the GEM project beginning here in the
US, substantial element qualifications were pursued.
I look forward to the DC-Education WG discussions on
appropriate qualifiers and, where necessary, additional
well-defined elements.
Stuart
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart A. Sutton (206) 685-6618 (Voice)
Associate Professor (206) 543-1794 (Fax)
University of Washington [log in to unmask]
School of Library and Information Science
328 Old Electrical Engineering Building, Box 352930
Seattle, WA 98195-2930
---------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Mason [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 3:41 AM
> To: 'J. Innes'; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: 'Stuart Sutton'
> Subject: RE: IMS/IEEE vs DC
>
> There is a perception that there is some kind of
> irreconcilability between DC and IMS. I certainly don't
> subscribe to this view, although I must acknowledge that
> in this last year no-one could be blamed for adopting it.
>
> On August 6th the IMS Technical Board voted unanimously
> on the IMS Metadata Specification, which consisted of three
> parts:
>
> 1) the IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) Scheme,
> 2) the IMS Learning Resource Metadata XML Binding
> Specification, and
> 3) the IMS Learning Resource Metadata Best Practice and
> Implementation Guide.
>
> At the meeting, Australia took the position that DC
> already has wide acceptance in Australia and the IMS
> Metadata Best Practice & Implementation Guide must address
> the relationship between DC & IMS. The documents referred to
> are currently being edited and will be made publicly available
> on August 20th from the IMS Web site <http://www.imsproject.org>
>
> In the shorter term, it will be essential for contributors
> to the DC-Education WG that the IMS work is given
> appropriate consideration. In the longer term, there will
> need to be some kind of convergence between DC and IMS in terms
> of metadata usage by and for educational communities.
>
> A crude distinction can be made at the moment, however,
> between IMS & DC as they are currently specified -- DC is,
> & has been, focused on resource discovery which can operate
> both across & within diverse communities of interest; IMS
> is largely focused on online content management and delivery,
> with a view toward machine interoperability at the enterprise
> level. The high granularity of educational metadata in the
> IMS spec (& IEEE LOM) is a significant initiative. However, it
> could also be said that such an approach is deficient in
> maximising interoperability across interest domains. This is
> where DC has excelled.
>
> Currently in Australia, both at the national and state levels,
> there is a lot of activity and effort being put toward
> capturing/defining educational metadata beyond the minimalist
> implementation adopted by EdNA (Education Network Australia)
> in August 1998 <http://www.edna.edu.au/metadata>. There is
> currently an expectation that a combination of qualifiers and
> well-defined educational elements will deliver the kind of
> specification that will work best and move the EdNA Metadata
> Standard forward to a position that enables a high degree of
> interoperability.
>
> Stuart may have other comments about this.
>
>
> regards,
> Jon
>
> ===================================
> Jon Mason
> Senior Consultant
> Education.Au Ltd
> 178 Fullarton Rd
> Dulwich SA 5065
>
> teL: +61 8 8334 3207
> 0412 570 578 (mobile)
> fax: +61 8 8334 3211
> email: [log in to unmask]
> http://www.educationau.edu.au
> ===================================
> EdNA - Education Network Australia - Australia's
> Foremost Education & Training Online Directory Service
> http://www.edna.edu.au
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. Innes [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 12:14 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: IMS/IEEE vs DC
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was intrigued by Dublin Core's foray into educational
>> metadata. TeleEducation NB has been following this area with
>> great interest, and to ate has found nothing very concrete
>> to latch onto. The IMS Project requires a stiff membership
>> fee and is still at the prototype stage. The IEEE Learning
>> Object Metadata is, as I understand it, pretty much the same
>> thing as IMS (Tom Wason has authored both the IMS and the
>> IEEE specs).
>>
>> May I ask the organizers of this listserv how they intend to
>> distinguish this effort from these preceding ones?
>>
>> Julia Innes
>> Database Librarian
>> TeleEducation NB
>> 500 Beaverbrook Court
>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1
>> [log in to unmask]
>> (506) 444-4231
>> Fax: (506) 444-4232
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
