Post on 03-Nov-2014
description
transcript
Vladimir Tomberg, Mart Laanpere Tallinn University, Narva mnt. 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estoniavtomberg@tlu.ee, mart.laanpere@tlu.ee
Mash-up PLE have become a fast developing trend, especially for informal learning
How to exchange course-related information between PLEs in case of formal e-course?
Course is not just a static syllabus, it also involves various dynamic processes
These processes can be described using course metadata
A course has: Learning objectives Schedule for learning activities, deadlines
(assignments, discussions) A list of registered participants with
different roles (teachers, students) Different types of learning resources
We usually can extract such information from LMS, but how can it be done with PLE?
(X)HTML is a main format for PLE
(X)HTML syntax is not designed for carrying the semantic data
Different technologies have been introduced in the past, Microformats and RDFa are two most widespread
A teacher publishes information about her course using a Web application of her choice — blog, wiki, forum or personal Web site
Information is delivered to learners via mash-up technology
The course metadata contains: course description, amount of credits,
important dates, contact information (teacher, students)
pre-requisite and target competencies,
required and suggested reading,
the criteria and form of a final assessment,
learning resources
assignments (tasks, deadlines, tools, roles)
Teacher can constantly update the course metadata, even during the course
Teacher assigns the tasks (individual, group tasks), gives feedback to submitted contributions and assesses the learning outcomes
Learners have always the fresh information on everything that happens on a course
HTML code:
<a href = "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" rel="license">cc by 2.0</a>
In browser:
cc by 2.0
Standard (X)HTML attributes 'class', 'rel' and 'rev' are used for metadata storing purpose
Not standardized, but well specified and widely known
In constant and endless development
Do not have any ontologies, formal descriptions or schemas
HTML code:
<a rel="cc:license" href="http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/"> Creative Commons License </a>
In browser:
Creative Commons License
Standardized by W3C Uses 10 reserved tags, 5 of them from
XHTML2 Can be applied for RDFa only to
XHTML2, not for HTML, XHTML1 Mixing different namespaces in one
document is possible, for example 'dc:' and 'cc:' simultaneously
Difficult to predict the future potential because W3C does not support any more the futher development of XHTML 2
Microformats
RDFa
Can be applied to HTML, XHTML In current state for XHTML 2 and limited for XHTML 1
Have useful implementations for end user today
Yes, different add-ons for browsers allow that
Not very useful for end user directly today
Can be used in mash-ups Yes Yes
Implementation in indexing services
Google and Yahoo now indexing such microformats as hCard and hReview
Google, US Government Website and Slideshare use RDFa
Standardized No W3C Recommendation
Drawbacks One limited dictionary for all purposes.Because of absence of standards support from developers is more enthusiastic than industrial
Because of finishing of XHTML2 development the perspectives of RDFa are very unclear at the current moment
Microformats
RDFa
Vocabularies Only one Unlimited amount is possible
Extendable vocabularies Yes, but only through community
Yes, freely
Interoperability level High Interoperability is possible only if known vocabularies are used
Possibilities to add educational semantic values to data
Average High
Microformats RDFaCourse’s membership via hCardLearner and Teacher information via hCardMembers relations via XFNCourse events via hCalendar
Can use any semantic vocabulary that suitable for course description
Vladimir Tomberg, Mart Laanpere
Towards Lightweight LMS 2.0: A Blog-based Approach to Online Assessment,
EC-TEL 2008 Maastricht, The Netherlands
Which technology is more suitable? Depends on your needs and limitations
Microformats Simple adaptation;
Limited vocabulary for educational needs;
RDFa More flexible and semantically rich;
Unclear future because XHTML2 lost W3C’s support