Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19

on

  • 904 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
904
Views on SlideShare
903
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.health.medicbd.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19 Presentation Transcript

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