 |
 |
Acknowledging the alternate frameworks and all the work gone into them, and placing that meta in OER content is vital - why make a.n.other standard? Pointless. But, interoperability is key, for even only a few shared practical standards. So, level of knowledge, which in Europe is indicated by EQF, upwards of 600m people use this standard (not particularly 'specialist', so I slightly disagree with Phil's interpretation there), plus topic are a start. I appreciate that many in these discussions are north American, so you may use another standard for level of knowledge, that's a prime example of the challenge here. I also gently and politely reiterate that not all 'OER' are courses or parts of courses, they are single web pages, blog posts or PDF docs. Thanks for the thesis share, very useful. pen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - penworks.net <https://www.penworks.net> | @penworks | skype:penworkz On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:59 PM J Marks <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > David et al, > > That is exactly why I do not consider these competing, but the same > information in different contexts and formats. Brothers in arms, if you > will. So the goal should be harmonization and mapping between them to allow > for interoperability and slow convergence in common use. In my view, it is > no longer relevant to talk about picking a standard for metadata but rather > we should talk about the harmonization of implementation across standards. > A paper Stuart Sutton shared a while back (2014) sticks with me on the -> > http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:369527/FULLTEXT02 > > Food for thought, > +Stuart as he is the man on this topic. > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:12 AM David Wiley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> As we reflect on all the work already done on metadata standards for >> learning resources (including but not limited to LRMI, IEEE/LTSC, SCORM, >> IMS, ARIADNE, and Dublin Core Ed to name a few), I'm reminded of this >> classic xkcd comic, which always makes me smile. >> >> [image: standards.png] >> >> As has already been said, "driving adoption" seems to be the most useful >> activity we could be engaging in now. No standard will ever be perfect, and >> there are already several standards that are "good enough" for the majority >> of use cases. >> >> David >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:30 AM James Collins <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to Angie's breakdown of tags. >>> I would also suggest adding tags related to accessibility whenever >>> possible. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:25 AM Mark Corbett Wilson < >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Greetings >>>> >>>> I would add the FOAF (friend of a friend) ontology to support building >>>> OE communities and PLNs. >>>> My suggestion for "a controlled vocabulary (ontology) to enable both >>>> human and machine searches for OE objects on the internets" was accepted in >>>> 2017 but didn't seem to stick to the CC Open Education Platform >>>> <https://creativecommons.org/2017/09/05/invitation-join-cc-open-education-platform/>. >>>> In my attempt to eschew verbosity I didn't explain this as metadata or as a >>>> means of community building. >>>> I made a similar proposal three years ago to the Association for >>>> Authentic, Experiential, and Evidence-Based Learning (AAEEBL), the >>>> international professional development organization for ePortfolio teachers >>>> and administrators. So far, no progress has been made in the AAEEBL Special >>>> Interest Group. >>>> Apparently this is a wicked problem that will need an international >>>> group like CC to lead. >>>> >>>> Peace & Resistance >>>> >>>> Mark Corbett Wilson >>>> >>>> “In a world of change, the learners shall inherit the earth, while the >>>> learned shall find themselves perfectly suited for a world that no longer >>>> exists.” ~ Eric Hoffer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. >>>> www.avg.com >>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>>> <#m_-2928777863841124255_m_9171959559849801480_m_-1434378304595393670_m_3682310792211346390_m_2029136581559840648_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 6:49 AM Pen Lister <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> thats super useful for my work Angie. >>>>> >>>>> Ill respond again later to Phil and yourself but finding this a very >>>>> useful thread. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Pen >>>>> >>>>> 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.net <https://www.penworks.net> | @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: >>>>>> Keyword >>>>>> 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 http://webdatacommons.org/structureddata/#toc3 is that >>>>>> schema.org 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. >>>>>> http://people.pjjk.net/phil >>>>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance >>>>>> learning; information systems for education. >>>>>> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: 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 https://groups.google.com/group/cc-openedu. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/cc-openedu. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/cc-openedu. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *J Collins**Pronouns: They, Them, Theirs* >>> *Innovation Strategist* >>> FableVision Studios | @FVStudioBoston | @JamesCollinsJr >>> E: [log in to unmask] | P: 616-956-5700 x714 | W: >>> www.fablevisionstudios.com >>> >>> <http://www.fablevisionstudios.com/our-work/> >>> "Stories that Matter, Stories that Move" >>> <http://www.fablevisionstudios.com/our-work/> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/cc-openedu. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OER Advocacy" 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 >> https://groups.google.com/group/oer-advocacy-coalition. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the OER-DISCUSS list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=OER-DISCUSS&A=1