thats super useful for my work Angie.

Ill respond again later to Phil and yourself but finding this a very useful thread. Thanks.


ps I keep getting return errors from the jiscmail when i reppoly - i try clicking on the approve link but still I am not added to the group - any tips appreciated!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | @penworks | skype:penworkz

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 3:12 PM Angie Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi All,
There are multiple sets of schemas for tagging.  LRMI, CEDS, and so many more.  In my experience, I have found that neither the resource creator or the process/person adding content to an LMS are on the same page.  
I have worked with states, districts, and vendors to harvest content.  Each on having their own metadata fields.  
In US, we had a group of 13 states “adopt” common educational metadata tags so that we could share resources across states easily.  For reasons such as inability to change LOR input fields and lack of understanding this “adoption” failed.  
This is a wide field. I will say that a lesson I learned through the state tagging initiative was we had too many fields with too specific option sets.  I have tagged thousands of resources and manage my states LOR and application teachers use to search our LOR. 
Most Common search fields after grade and subject: 
Media type (audio, video, doc, etc)
Instructional type  (interactive, module, lesson, etc)
And rating.  
Everything else is just nice to have.
The common tags I see most content have:
Title, description, subject, grade.  

Interesting topic. 

On Feb 1, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Phil Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On 01/02/2019 12:47, Pen Lister wrote:

thanks for your input. 

Sorry about not using correct terminology about 'lobbying' - it was just a figure of speech. Being involved at relevant level in standards bodies to be able to adopt interoperable meta properties is all I am talking about.

No problem. I baulked at the implication that there is some other group of people somewhere doing this work who we should be influencing. The only way to get influence is to do the work. Probably me being over-sensitive.

In terms of adding 'specialist terms' - Im talking about basic properties that are very likely in use already - for example EQF level and topic area would probably be enough to begin with.

EQF *is* specialist. It's specific to education, and only used in Europe.

The idea is to simplify as currently the sheer amount of derivative RDF approaches (meta or inline, different nomenclatures, different validation rules etc etc) probably put most people off altogether.

I noted with some consternation that though these RDF languages might be popular amongst proponents of OER they are very often not used at all elsewhere. Open Graph remains the single highest used RDF, for obvious reasons.
My reading of is that is more widely used in terms of number of pay level domains and number of entities described. But it's not easy to make straight comparisons with so many variables in syntax and the nature of the data models.

I think if you can get a tag into Open Graph for representing educational level that would be a great start in making OG useful for representing educational properties. Though there will then be issues about what terms you use to describe the educational level.

I'll be at the OER19 conference in a couple of months, I'ld be happy to talk about this to anyone there.



Phil Barker.
PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.

PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090

This is the list for the Creative Commons Open Education Platform.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Education Platform" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask].
To post to this group, send email to [log in to unmask].
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

To unsubscribe from the OER-DISCUSS list, click the following link: