Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19

727 views
680 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
727
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19

  1. 1. The LOM RDF binding - update 2003-06-19 <ul><ul><li>Mikael Nilsson </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Knowledge Management Research Group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Centre for user oriented IT design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://kmr.nada.kth.se </li></ul></ul>
  2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Use cases of LOM/RDF </li></ul><ul><li>XML binding compatibility issues </li></ul><ul><li>Status of the binding </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
  3. 3. Use cases 1: UR (Swedish educational broadcasting company) <ul><li>Largest content producer in Sweden (state owned) </li></ul><ul><li>~3000 TV/Radio programs since 2001 (30,000 since 1970), plus books, web sites, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>+50 every week </li></ul><ul><li>Online archive of digital versions since February: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.ur.se (in Swedish...) </li></ul>
  4. 4. UR: Web
  5. 5. UR: Metadata <ul><li>4 application profiles (program, series, texts, websites) </li></ul><ul><li>Several vocabularies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DC (title, description, subject, relation, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DC Qualifiers (medium, MIME type, W3CDTF...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LOM (difficulty, location, annotation, requirements..) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>UR specific (accessibility, licenses, participants) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IMS content packaging </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. UR: Metadata refinements <ul><li>Refinements for e.g.: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>identifiers (4-5 types in use in parallel at UR) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>annotations (internal and external) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>descriptions (different kinds for different purposes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>language (spoken/subtitles) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Vocabularies for </li></ul><ul><ul><li>audiences, types, media carriers, including refinements of DC & LOM vocabulary. </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. UR features <ul><li>Easily modifiable metadata set , and easily configurable editor. Without disturbing, we can: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>add fields </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>refine fields and values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>add vocabularies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supports cross-search with DC/DCQ repositories. Demonstrated yesterday at UR: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UR, OAI, Swed. Agency of Education, digital portfolios </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Use case 2: Edutella <ul><li>P2P network for metadata exchange </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://edutella.jxta.org </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supports any RDF metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Scenarios: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Search for nuclear physics material ( DC, DCQ ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Search for learning material for primary school on nuclear physics ( LOM ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Search for courses including a certain piece of content ( IMS CP ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Search for annotations/opinions on this course. </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Use case 3: RSS feeds <ul><li>Rich Site Summary 1.0 based on RDF and DC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://purl.org/rss/1.0/ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Stephen Downes' RSS/LOM module : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.downes.ca/xml/RSS_LOM.htm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The RSS-LOM Module provides translation from IEEE-LOM to RSS 1.0 to allow learning object repositories to syndicate listings and descriptions of learning objects.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ An RSS feed provided by a learning object repository is harvested by a metadata repository and aggregated with feeds from other learning object repositories.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ These aggregated feeds are then made available as a searchable resource, the links provided ultimately pointing to the learning objects provided by the original learning object repositories.” </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. RSS/LOM example (extract) <ul><li><dc:identifier>0-226-10389-7</dc:identifier> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:title>Sample Learning Object</dc:title> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:language>en</dc:language> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:description>A sample learning object metadata file in RSS<dc:description> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:subject>psychology</dc:subject> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:coverage>1776-07-04</dc:coverage> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-gen:structure>Atomic</lom-gen:structure> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-gen:aggregationLevel>13</lom-aggregationLevel> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-life:version>beta</lom-lifecycle:version> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-life:status>final</lom-lifecycle:status> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:publisher>National Research Council</dc:publisher> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:editor>Rod Savoie</dc:editor> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:creator>Stephen Downes</dc:creator> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-meta:metadataScheme rdf:resource=&quot;&lom-meta;LOMv1.0&quot;/> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:format>text/html</dc:format> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-tech:operatingSystem>Multi-OS<lom-tech:operatingSystem> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-tech:browser>NetscapeCommunicator 4.7</lom-tech:browser> </li></ul><ul><li><dcterms:extent>PT1H20M</dcterms:extent> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:interactivityType>Active</lom-edu:interactivityType> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:type>Exercise<lom-edu:type> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:interactivityLevel>Low</interactivityLevel> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:semanticDensity>High</lom-edu:semanticDensity> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:intendedEndUserRole>Manager</lom-edu:intendedEndUserRole> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:context>School</lom-edu:context> </li></ul><ul><li><dcterms:audience>7-12</dcterms:audience> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:difficulty>Easy</lom-edu:difficulty> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:typicalLearningTime>PT1H20M</lom-edu:typicalLearningTime> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:description>This is intended to...</lom-edu:description> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-edu:language>en</lom-edu:language> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-rights:cost>SomeCost</lom-rights:cost> </li></ul><ul><li><lom-rights:copyrightAndOtherRestrictions>SomeRestriction</lom-rights:copyrightAndOtherRestrictions> </li></ul><ul><li><dc:rights>RightsBroker:RightsModel</dc:rights> </li></ul>
  11. 11. RDF <=> XML issues (for the BRG) <ul><li>Metadata term URIs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LOM/XML has them, LOM/RDF has them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How to sync LOM/XML – LOM/RDF wrt CORES? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Vocabulary term URIs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to give URI for a term. Needed in RDF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For LOM vocab: URIs for LOM vocabulary values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For local vocab: vocabulary XML format? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>LOM extensions are format specific </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to make this clear in the LOM/XML spec </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. RDF binding status <ul><li>Most details resolved in the direction of simplification </li></ul><ul><li>Ballot-ready in principle </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Binding is not perfect, but given the contraints we have, it's as good as it gets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Goal: “Yes, you can use RDF and be LOM-compatible. Here's how to do it:” </li></ul><ul><li>This goal is achievable with the current binding </li></ul><ul><li>See http://kmr.nada.kth.se/el/ims/md-lomrdf.html </li></ul>
  13. 13. Future <ul><li>Next-generation LOM visions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>allows for semantic extensions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>plays nicer with other vocabularies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>fits better into RDF world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in short: better knowledge representation capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The RDF binding work shows many of the problems and possibilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>will help inform LOM 2.0. </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Issues for LOM 2.0 <ul><li>The issue of semantic (not structural) extension : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Subclasses, Subproperties, Element encodings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>This needs a meta-model for metadata . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DC has one: “element”, “element refinement”, “element encoding”). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LOM has one: “element” “sub-element”, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RDF is a meta-model. DC is compatible, LOM is not. LOM's metamodel is insufficient for dealing with semantic extension </li></ul><ul><li>As LOM is structured, not flat: Needs conceptual modeling more than DC. What are objects, what are relations? </li></ul>

×