1. Metadata Possibilities: from the IEEE LOM through Dublin Core to …the “Cloud”? Dr. Norm Friesen nfriesen@tru.ca Athabasca, AB 11/12/09 Metadata Possibilities: from the IEEE LOM through Dublin Core to …the “Cloud”? Photo: EssjayNZ

2. Overview What is a standard & how can it be evaluated? Standards to consider for metadata for online learning resources: – Learning Object Metadata (IEEE LOM) – Dublin Core – ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 “Metadata for Learning Resources” A case for a “new” approach

3. What is a standard? "documented agreements containing technical specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics, to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose" Fit for Purpose: discoverable, reusable, interoperable, adaptable, accessible De facto / de jure standards: complex relationship E.g. Dublin Core, folksonomies, etc.

4. Standards are “Living” Documents: They have a 5-7 Year Lifecycle

5. Three Standards for Educational & Generic Resource Metadata IEEE Learning Object Metadata Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; Standard released in 2002; renewed in 2009; CanCore as documentation ISO Dublin Core (OCLC –Online Computer Library Centre) American (ANSI/NISO) Standard in 2001 (Z39.85-2001) ISO Standard 15836:2009 IETF RFC 5013 of August 2007 ISO/IEC JTC 1 Learning Resource Metadata (will be standardizing IMS Content Packaging and SCORM) 2009/09 (framework); 2010/03 (Dublin Core elements)

6. IEEE Learning Object Metadata 1484.12.3: Standard For Learning Technology- Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema Definition Language Binding For Learning Object Metadata (2005) “On 13 May 2009, the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved the reaffirmation of LOM. That means that LOM has entered its second 5 year period of being an active standard.”

7. LOM Basics: 76 Elements General (10) Lifecycle (9) Meta-metadata (10) Educational (11) Technical (12) Rights (3) Relation (7) Annotation (4) Classification (9) 2 types of elements: Ones containing others Ones containing data 6 types of data: CharacterString LangString (value, language indicator) DateTime, Duration Vocabulary vCard

8. How elements & data work together CAREO 632844 URI http://www.pcc.edu/dl/idea.html Idea: The Inter… Idea: la base…

9. Complex structures: classification, lifecycle, technical LOMv1.0 editor BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:3.0 N:Smith;John;W.;Dr.; FN:Dr. John W. Smith ORG:Open Learning Agency END:VCARD 2003

10. How are these Elements used? International Survey from 2006 5 Sets of records varying in size from 75 to over 3000; 50 randomly selected from each (n=250): ARIADNE Project (EU) the LTSN (UK) Metalab (France) CELTS (China) CAREO (Canada)

11. Frequency of Element Use

12. The most frequently used elements (not container elements; %-tage) : Title, Description, Keyword Format (e.g..html,.jpg,.doc) Language (human) Author Learning Resource Type (simulation, exercise, etc.) Subject Classification (Purpose=Discipline)

13. How are used elements populated? Contributor Types  Info about contributors 

14. Conclusions: Elements and Values Selected Frequently The LOM is used to describe intellectual content of resources: – General: Identifier, Title, Description, Keyword – LifeCycle.Contribute (role = Author and publisher) – Classification (Purpose=Discipline) The LOM is used to describe file and media characteristics: – Technical.Format, Technical.Size, Location – Educational.Learning Resource Type (text, hypertext, notes, etc.)

15. Conclusions: Elements and Values Seldom Selected LOM use does NOT emphasize description of an educational context or level: – Educational.Semantic Density 0% – Educational.Context <20% – EndUserRole 40% LOM is NOT used to describe resources in terms of software objects: – Structure, Version (i.e. Alpha, Beta), Status <18% – Aggregation level <27% – Contribute.Role="terminator" “technical implementer/validator“ 0%

16. “De facto status” of IEEE LOM

17. “De facto status:” LOM vs DC

18. Criticisms “The “industrialist” Learning Objects approach has run out of steam” (OLCOS Roadmap, 2007) Keep it simple (stupid!) E.g., see Wilson 2005: notepad test - can you create a valid data instance in Notepad in less than 4k? reading test: can you read and understand the basics of the specification in less than one hourr? scripting test - can you script a simple client or service provider in one day? Embed in html; realize value with small investment; compatible with “Web 2.0” technologies & practices (interactive information sharing; collaboration; distributed)

19. Dublin Core ISO Standard 15836-2003 of February 2003 – 2 nd edition available as of 2009-02-18 ANSI/NISO Standard Z39.85-2007 of May 2007 IETF RFC 5013 of August 2007 OCLC As a de facto standard?

20. 15 Elements in the DCES Contributor Coverage Creator Date Description Format Identifier Language Publisher Relation Rights Source Subject Title Type

21. Expressing Dublin Core Description Sets using XML (for title) <dcds:descriptionSet xmlns:dcds="http://purl.org/dc/xmlns/2008/09/01/ dc-ds-xml/"> <dcds:statement dcds:propertyURI=“...dc/terms/title"> DCMI Home Page

22. RDF: "The resource (example.org) has the subject 'Ornitology' from the vocab: …/taxonomy/MyVocab" <dcam:memberOf rdf:resource="http://example.org/taxonomy/MyVocab"/> Ornitology

23. What does RDF in particular enable? "a recommended best practice for exposing, sharing, and connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs [Web addresses] and RDF." “The properties and classes of DCMI Metadata Terms have been defined for compatibility with Linked Data principles” “Over the past two years, vast amounts of commercial and public-sector data have been added to a growing to a linked data cloud.”

25. E.g. Searching in Wikipedia vs. DBpedia Wikipedia Article: Max Schreck http://wiki.dbpedia.org/O nlineAccess#h28-3

26. DC: Levels of Interoperability Level 1: Shared Term Definitions -based on shared natural-language definitions Level 2: Formal Semantic Interop: based on the shared formal model via RDF & linked data Level 3: Description Set Syntactic Interop: share abstract syntax for validatable metadata records Level 4: Description Set Profile Interop: shared vocabularies & view of world

27. Metadata for Learning Resources ISO/IEC 19788-1 ITLET – Metadata for Learning Resources –Part 1: Framework 2010-09 ISO/IEC 19788-2 ITLET – Metadata for Learning Resources – Part 2: Core Elements 2011-03 “The DC-Education Community is working with the ISO Metadata for Learning Resources group to ensure compatibility of the DC-Education Application Profile Module and the ISO MLR-5: Educational Elements standard. We will be attending ISO MLR webconferences on 16 November 2009 and 18 December 2009, in preparation for the group's big meeting in Osaka in 2010.”

28. MLR – Characteristics Multilingual capability: for element contents, for documentation and support Accessibility: one part of the standard will be devoted to accessibility; accessibility experts have been providing input throughout Compatibility: with the IEEE LOM (as an application profile), with Dublin Core (very directly), with Dublin Core RDF Support: implementation guideline(s) planned

29. MLR Part 1

30. MLR Part 2: Dublin Core Elements “This Part is provides full Dublin Core interoperability for this Standard. This is achieved through the description of each Dublin Core element using the MLR data element specification template provided in the MLR Part 1 Framework. In addition, Dublin Core definitions were reviewed in order to level out interpretation [and] ambiguity[,] and best practice guidance is provided in notes.”

31. How RDF works Oval = Resource (URI) Rectangle = Literal (String)

32. References ISO SC36 Livelink: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&o bjId=806742 http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&o bjId=806742 Dublin Core http://dublincore.org/http://dublincore.org/ My blog: http://learningspaces.org/n/node/34 http://learningspaces.org/n/node/34