+ All Categories
Home > Business > LOM in Waxahachie

LOM in Waxahachie

Date post: 08-Jul-2015
Category:
Upload: erik-duval
View: 698 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
23
LOM working group session 23 April 2008 Erik Duval K.U.Leuven & ARIADNE http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~erikd 1
Transcript
Page 1: LOM in Waxahachie

LOM working group session23 April 2008

Erik DuvalK.U.Leuven & ARIADNE

http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~erikd

1

Page 2: LOM in Waxahachie

2

Page 3: LOM in Waxahachie

remote participation• http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/5a090c-13049

• chat backchannel

• recording available afterwards

• let’s make sure that remote participants

• understand questions

• local coordinator: repeat questions from floor

• see slides

• understand who is talking

• ...3

Page 4: LOM in Waxahachie

first

• “Early identification of patent claims which may be essential for the use of standards under development is strongly encouraged;”

• “opportunity for participants to identify patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) and/or the holder of patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of that standard”

4

Page 5: LOM in Waxahachie

agenda

1. welcome, roll call (20 min)

2. reaffirmation: ballot result and resolution (30 min)

3. corrigenda: ballot initiation (30 min)

• lunch/dinner (20 min)

4. DCAM and RDF PAR: getting started (60 min)

5. metadata2.0: longer term future (60 min)

6. wrap-up (20 min)

5

Page 6: LOM in Waxahachie

welcome

• roll call...

6

Page 7: LOM in Waxahachie

reaffirmation

7

ballot group 30

affirmative 23

negative 2

response rate 25/30 = 83%

approval rate 23/25 = 92%

Page 8: LOM in Waxahachie

reaffirmation ballot group

8

+ - ? ∑academic

general

gov/mil

producer

user

4 1 1 6

9 0 2 11

3 0 0 3

2 0 1 3

5 1 1 7

Page 9: LOM in Waxahachie

• Besides listing Other Platform Requirements (4.6) as strings, it should also be possible to provide the download links for any required software.

• Must be satisfied: No

• Proposed Change: Add required software download links to the Technical group.

• discussion:

• out of scope for corrigenda

• maybe in next version or LomNext

• one needs much more than just download link to know whether you can deliver the object (about device, MPEG-21 stuff)

• can be done in OtherPlatformRequirements as best practice

• can become quite complex with and- or or-statements for different platforms, current such structure is barely used (?) in practice

• not sure that this even belongs in LOM9

Page 10: LOM in Waxahachie

• The presentation and selection of learning objects through the LOM is very textual and lacks background and graphical information.

• Must be satisfied: No

• Proposed Change: Add elements to the General group for preview, more information, an "icon" representing the object etc.

• discussion:

• graphical representations are no metadata?

• relates more to systems that utilize LOM?

• out of scope

• people do put link for preview, but out of scope for corrigenda

• some discussion on whether metadata can be graphical, but agreement that this is not relevant for corrigenda

• again can become quite complex quickly10

Page 11: LOM in Waxahachie

• The value space for 4.4.1.2 is outdated and misses for example "firefox". For every new version of the standard this list will be outdated after a couple of years.

• Must be satisfied: Yes

• Proposed Change: Change the datatype of 4.4.1.2 to CharacterString and move the text in the value space to the examples.

• discussion:

• is vocabulary (state) now

• changing type would create interoperability issues and is not what we want to do in corrigenda

• vocabularies can already be extended due to their definition in LOM

• adding vocabulary item "firefox" may be useful (maybe also "safari"?), nobody feels too strong either way

• some apprehension that people would then want to modify other vocabularies as well

• related to issue 14 of corrigenda, which we don't plan to accept

• may have been more relevant earlier when there was more dependency on browsers

• firefox presents itself as mozilla, so becomes more complex when you want to address this more seriously

11

Page 12: LOM in Waxahachie

• No technical comments are submitted for the reaffirmation ballot under the assumption that all issues with the standard will be taken care of in the corrigenda.

• Must be satisfied: No

• Proposed Change: None

12

Page 13: LOM in Waxahachie

• This comments applies to all instances of maximum number of items shown in the Base Schema. The imposition of a maximum number of instances of an item is arbitrary and unnecessary. What is worse, is that specifying maxima acts as a serious limitation on the scalability of meta models. I cannot imagine any logical or technical reason to make these maxima reasonable. This caused me serious difficulties a few years ago when I was working on a large meta model and at the time I could see no sense in them.

• Must be satisfied: No

• Proposed Change: Remove all maximum numbers of items from the components of the Base Schema.

• discussion:

• a bit unclear, as LOM includes "smallest permitted maximum", not maxima

• there is more widespread confusion about this

• remove spm would change nature of LOM: out of scope

• spm is essential for some implementers

• XML binding sets size to unlimited, but someone who implements a parser must at least accept spm size

• maybe look for suggestions to section 4.5, but then again that was result of long discussion that we may not want to repeat?

• maybe take some text from CMI Clause 4.6: “Smallest permitted maximum values:This Standard defines smallest permitted maximum (SPM) values for data elements with data types that include bag, array, set, and characterstring. For these data elements, a receiving implementation or a repository implementation that conforms to this Standard shall accept and process at least that number of entries or characters specified by the SPM for the element and may accept and process a larger number.”

13

Page 14: LOM in Waxahachie

and now...

• recirculation ballot

• spreadsheet with all proposed actions

14

Page 15: LOM in Waxahachie

• PAR approved on 27 March 2008

• IEEE Standard for Learning Object Metadata - Corrigendum 1: Corrigenda for 1484.12.1 LOM (Learning Object Metadata)

• Scope: Corrigenda changes to correct technical errors or omissions in the 1484.12.1 Learning Object Metadata standard document as identified by those implementing the LOM standard during the past years.

• Purpose: Correct errors and omissions within the scope of a Corrigenda and to assist those implementing the LOM standard.

15

P1484.12.1-2002/Cor 1

Page 17: LOM in Waxahachie

and now...

• turn into a document that can be balloted

• initiate the ballot

17

Page 18: LOM in Waxahachie

DCAM & RDF

• P1484.12.4 and P1484.12.5

• PARs approved on 27 March 2008

• over to Mikael

18

Page 19: LOM in Waxahachie

and now...

• process for RDF and DCAM binding

• ...

19

Page 21: LOM in Waxahachie

requirements not well met• scope: real world objects, context, attention

• central role of identifier

• no records, but “snippets”

• massive numbers

• trust

• from repository to resource & web centric

• machine readable

• diversity: expert, consumer, automated

• conceptual model of metadata? learning?

21

Page 22: LOM in Waxahachie

wrap-up

• mostly mailing list for corrigenda

• flashmeetings for RDF & DCAM

• meeting in September?

• RDF & DCAM and metadata2.0

• mailing list archives?

• web presence?

22

Page 23: LOM in Waxahachie

23

Thanks!

Questions?http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/wordpress/eduval/

http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~erikd


Recommended